eee | 
bdo othe 


sia 


ties, 


see 


* 


asi aka 


SING. 84) ca Tila 


ri 
eR 
par vee 


4 aaa a. JG ae = 7 
! i ae Fee é ie 
AS mth (sea Pit aol adh: vf 


iy? 


é a 
ee OAT aes 


Bi "Oe 


=o, i 


ae 


et <a AR 


ELEMENTS 
OF DIVINITY 


By THOMAS N. RALSTON, D.D. 


—_____—. 


A CONCISE AND COMPREHENSIVE VIEW 

OF BIBLE THEOLOGY; COMPRISING THE 

DOCTRINES, EVIDENCES, MORALS, AND 

INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY; WITH 

APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS APPENDED 
TO EACH CHAPTER 


EDITED BY 
T. O. SUMMERS, D.D. 


REVISED, WITH INTRODUCTION 


ABINGDON-COKESBURY PRESS 
NEW YORK e¢ NASHVILLE 


CopyRIGHt, 1924 
BY 
LAMAR & BARTON 


Printed in the United States of America 


CHAPTER 


i 

Il. 
II. 
IV. 
ve 
Vis 
VIL. 


XII. 
XIII. 


XIV. 
XV. 


CONTENTS 


PART I.—DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK I.— DOCTRINES RELATING TO GOD. 


WP hestexistCUce Olt sOU a. + cis cicis iene c Uiie cies 8s gin ofe 9:0'5.010 © 
FORA T EEL ULES Ol Gs OU opeiefeterstsitais Gr siclcle <! sxene.e cies) stele) «re 
CC iOL VAN Ey Ont TiS eer ac. kos aie) oA oie'=: s.ece- 6 <le's aes, 
The Personality and Divinity of the Holy Spirit........ 
(iivev ls talkie UP aT Ave Nee didn. Gato Goh Ged BOic se ouUaOaOerIT 
(ANS CORTES 5 een an Abed oe eiegdO OSes POD RS OC RIE 
[DYkiarxe, lB weha NGS acoboe o Sab Gon oa aon aoe coo pdus 


BOOK II.—DOCTRINES RELATING TO MAN, 


Mm Lheerrimeval State ol. Vane ida a arr eerie. ase es 
. The Fall of Man—The Divine Administration Vindicated. 
. The Effects of the Fall of Man—Penalty of the Law 


Gonsidercd eee eee ea Rtn eo ae ota oe ees 


. The Effects of the Fall of Man—Depravity—The Doc- 


fines Denned nas broved sae rraciale ce tists) sie tare ieter mie: 
Depravity—Objections Considered... ..........-.---- 
Depravity—Objections Considered—Moral State and 
begat. Relation of:infantsxic8. 22. seks soe 6% Seana © 
her Nilorab APENCWCOl VEAMN Se ctr sin) an «eles «ons <5 bo op Go eet 
The Moral Agency of Man—Objections............... 


BOOK ITI.—THE REMEDIAL SCHEME—ITS PROVISIONS. 


XVI. 
XVII. 


XVIII. 


XIX. 


XX. 


XXI. 


XXII. 


XXIII. 


XXIV. 


PhesAtonement——1tsaNeCCceSssiLy.cne cite ine = hi aciols ie ohne 


The Atonement—Its Nature—Patriarchal and Mosaic 
ACT INICES Mette eee eri te Rta ree BE ACH wire anaes sie 
The Attonement—Its Nature—Expiatory Character of 
thesWeathroreenrist see be arseh a ake d ost Sito evs e eek: sudle 


The Atonement—Its Extent—Various Theories Exhibited | 


The Atonement—Its Extent—More Modern Phases of 
Galvanismisexa Olin eC anes eeteedese oe hen ette cs Ye oi eter sioasien- 
The Atonement—Its Extent—The Arminian View Ex- 
Dipitecsand | rOved BV OCTIPLUre , . n. 6d =. Aime ape spay? « 
The Atonement—Its Extent—Predestination, Election, 
Foreknowledge, and Sovereignty. ..........2+--+0- 
The Atonement—Its Extent—Election and Predestina- 
tion—Special Scriptures Examined............+2+-6- 
Calvinism and Arminianism Compared...........++++: 


97 
104 


114 


295 


CHAPTER 
XXV. 
XXVI. 
XXVIT. 
XXVIII. 
XXIX. 


XXX. 


XXXI. 


XXXII. 
XXXII. 
XXXIV. 
XXXV. 
XXXVI. 
XXXVIT. 
XXXVIII. 
XXXIX. 
Doles 

cies 


ACT: 
LIE. 


1 


Lr 


IT: 


LV; 


Vi 


CONTENTS 


BOOK IV.—THE REMEDIAL SCHEME—ITS BENEFITS. 


PAGE 
The Influence’of the Holy, Spirit. .7 22-2" eae ee 329 
Repentance—Its Nature, Means, and Necessity........ 345 
Faith—Its General Import—Justifying Faith Considered. 355 
Justification—Its Nature Considered:... .... 2.0....-. 367 
Justification—False Theories Refuted—Justification by 

the Imputation of Christ’s Active Obedience Con- 

sidéreds ck 33 - Ade ho.c oe en eee CO wie «eee 374 
Justification—False Theories Refuted—Justification by 

Christ’s Active and Passive Obedience Taken Together, 

Consideredsx04. . outa. See ee Sk Sige ct ek ee ee 383 
Justification—False Theories Refuted—Justification by 

Works Alone, and by Faith and Works United, Con- 

Sidéred 2°. Ps wane Wade ot eee ee en et a ae 392 
Justification by Faith Only, Illustrated and Proved..... 397 
Justification by Faith Only—Objections Answered...... 407 
Régeneration 57.22 5 grate esterase ae fe cae ies sete eee 417 
Adoption—Witness of the Spirit...... wes Stamens setae 435 
Pérseverance of the saintst s..% ae: « esie oe siete Sed cod 444 
Christian ‘Periection x: soc ee aaicc« core on ec oteic ecermnree 457 

BOOK V.—THE FUTURE STATE, 
Immortality of the Human Soul—Philosophical Objec- 

tions Considered .c > Avg cen ce acd ven ec eee 473 
Immortality of the Human Soul—The Doctrine Estab- 

FE} 10216 RECO Eran emer, OTR matt RN tire ide Poi AM MLL acre 8 485 
The Resurrection of the Human Body................ 496 
The General Judgment) om 4... ur coe teh el cee cee 507 
Future Punishment: of the, Wicked...) 72.0 eee eee 519 
Future Happiness of the Righteous. ...........eeceee- 5a 
PART II.—EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 

BOOK I.—PREPARATORY EVIDENCE, 
Introduction—I mportance of the Subject, and Method 

OL Tn Vestiwa tiOl pees ed soe pete het ee ee 545 
Revelation Necessary to the Knowledge and Worship of 

CHOU Rete Risate tera e caetets, «| MEG es a ee ee 549 


Revelation Necessary to Teach the Origin, Duty, and 
Destiny! ole lanss. vert ssa. + Os. sale sain ee ee 556 


Ve 


The Character of Evidence Proper on the Subject of 
Revelation—Connection between the Christian Reli- 
gioniaad the Bible te. <). ./. . < cm ys phe eee ee 565 

Antiquity ofthe Scriptures. .... 3 uss oe ee ee 568 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 


VI. Authority of the Scriptures—Genuineness and Authen- 
ticity of the Old Testament. 06 om W054 gee te 

VII. Authority of the Scriptures—Genuineness and Authen- 
ticity of the New Testament...........-.---+20+++- 

VIII. Authority of the Scriptures—Inspiration of the Sacred 
Writers—The Sense in Which It Should Be Understood. 


BOOK II.—DIRECT EVIDENCE—EXTERNAL. 


1X. Miracles—Definition Considered. ..........-.+-- )++++> 
X. Miracles—Hume’s Argument. .........----eeeeee eee: 
XI. Miracles—The Character of Their Testmiony.......... 
XII, Miracles of the Old Testament... ......5 2-6-0 s5+0e004: 
XIII. Miracles of the New Testament...........-..---++05: 
XIV. The Prophecies of Scripture in Relation to the Jews.... 
XV. Prophecies in Relation to Nineveh, Babylon, and Tyre.. 
XVI. Prophecies in Relation to Messiah..........+++-+-+++5 
XVII. The Success, of Christianity... 62... 66.0 eee eect tees 


BOOK III.—DIRECT EVIDENCE—INTERNAL. 


XVIII. Harmony of the Dispensations—General Consistency of 
the Bible—Its Analogy with Nature..............-- 
XIX. Origin of the Bible—Life of Christ—Style of the Sacred 
Writers—Adaptation of Doctrines to the Character and 
(Condition Off Mant ye seer ete ee = a olor 
XX. Experimental Evidences—Considered in Reference to 
Men in General and to Christians in Particular....... 


PART III.—THE MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK I.—INTRODUCTORY PRINCIPLES. 


I. Connection between Moral Philosophy and Divine Reve- 
lation—The Manner in Which Morals Are Taught in 
PHASER ILLES te ee as) sins fe nasttre at a ose enone pin tonsens ts 

II. Philosophical Theses Exhibited—The Nature of Rectitude 
—The Ground of Moral Obligation. ...........--++. 


BOOK II.—OUR DUTY TO GOD. 


A ooliove od Ne Pear Ol COC entire palsies mp ofereie ties i> Se enre 
IV. Prayer—Its Nature and Propriety.......---+++++ss5+5 
V. Prayer—Scripture View—Different Kinds of Prayer... . 
VI. Prayer—Form of Public Widtelilpirened see 0 > ee ees oe 
VII. The Sabbath—Its Origin and Perpetuity...........-.: 
VIII. The Sabbath—Its Change from the Seventh to the First 
Day. of the; Week ce. mesa epee malta Bears a 

1X. The Christian Sabbath—lIts Observance..........+++-- 


Vv 


PAGE 


Shs: 


585 


691 


708 


719 


744 


vi CONTENTS 


BOOK III.—OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR, 


CHAPTER PAGE 
X. Its General Principles Considered.................-.-. 815 

XI. Application of the Law to Special Cases and Conditions— 
Husbands and Wives... |... ua. cle ee ee ree ees 825 

XII. Application of the Law to Special Cases and Conditions— 
Parents and Children 2%... 0% 02 oo cee eee omen 831 

XIII. Application of the Law to Special Cases and Conditions— 
Rulers and Subjects. ¢2... 1 2... -. Gataie ae ee eee 841 
XIV. Christian Consecration. 2.22. Fon -2 <. oe eee ee 848 


PART IV.—THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK 1.—-THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH—ITS ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT, AND 


POLITY. 

IntroductOry ..n.5.' «<< <:cge = eisimiejels 0p merege y-ray elon an en 857 
1. Foundation Principles Examined. .............-+.+.-- 860 
Il: The Apostoli¢ Office. 207. 2... oer ee 866 
[ll.. Form.of Church: Government. 22. 22. ie ei eee $73 

{V. Form of Church Government—Scripture Testimony— 
The-Old :Testament ».\0 5 22.0) ae ace 878 

V. Form of Church Government—Scripture Testimony— 
TheiNew Testament: 4 >. o.c0-.st-l epee ieee ene tenets 883 

VI. The Highest Governmental Authority—Originally Vested 
in the Apostlesy: c.%,./2 ) +): #8) 46 eee pre ee ee 887 

VII. The Governmental Authority—Deposited in the Or- 
dained Eldership . <4... ....ah sam 23 ia) Sore eee 895 

VIL. The Ministry—Different Orders—Ordination of the 
Ministry—Its Connection with the Churches......... 904 
1X. The Claims of Independency Examined.............-. 914 
X. Written Creeds, Disciplines, and Confessions of Faith... 922 


BOOK II.—THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 


XI. The Number and Nature of the Sacraments. .......... 937 
XII. Christian Baptism—Its Nature, Obligation, Design, and 

Efficacy. «ost ele pone: aden poet Rig nie, ale, Pw oe ee 940 

XIII. Christian Baptism—Its Subjects. ..........-.---++.-. 953 

XIV. Christian Baptism—lIts Mode..........------++--++-- 975 

XV. The Lord’s Supper—Its Origin and Nature............ 994 
XVI. The Lord’s Supper—The Right to Partake of It Con- 

Silered ein ek eri AS Ee Se ae Ce ee eed 999 


XVII. Objections to Free Communion Answered. .....-.--.-. 1005 


PREFACE 


Tue former treatise by the author, styled ‘‘Elements of 
Divinity,” related exclusively to the doctrines of Christianity. 
When that work was published, it was his purpose, at no distant 
day, to prepare a second volume, embracing the evidences, the 
morals, and the institutions of Christianity, comprising in the 
two volumes a complete system of Bible theology. Since the 
issue of the first volume much of his time and labor have been 
devoted to such research and investigation as he deemed 
important to the better accomplishment of his original purpose. 

As he progressed in the work, he became convinced that for 
the perfecting of his plan it would be necessary to revise and 
enlarge the first volume, not only by further elaborating many 
portions of it, but by adding thereto eight or ten chapters of 
new matter. 

The first part of the work now offered the public comprises 
the matter contained in the ‘‘Elements of Divinity,” in a 
revised, improved, and more elaborated and systematic form, 
together with eight or ten chapters entirely new, on topics 
merely glanced at in the former volume. The second, third, 
and fourth embrace the evidences, morals, and institutions of 
Christianity—topics entirely omitted in the former work. 

The more natural order in the presentation of the great 
themes embraced in this work would have required the evi- 
dences of Christianity to occupy a position at the commence- 
ment. But as the great staple doctrines of Christianity are 
more important in their nature and less intricate and perplexing 
to most Christians, as well as more essential to the young 
minister in the beginning of his labors, it was deemed the better 
plan, in view of utility, to.devote Part I to the doctrines, re- 
serving to Part II the evidences of Christianity. 

The object of the author in this work is not the production 
of a more orthodox, critical, learned, or elaborate treatise on 
theology than any with which the Church has already been 
blessed, but one better adapted to popular use in the present 
day. The theological writings of Stackhouse, Pearson, Dwight, 
John Dick, George Hill, Richard Watson, and others that might 

(1) 


2 PREFACE 


be named, have been extensively used and are a rich legacy 
which we trust will never cease to be appreciated by the Church. 
But while these noble preductions are learned and elaborate 
and are, doubtless, destined to an immortality of fame and use- 
fulness, it must be admitted that there is a felt want of the 
present day which they do not, they cannot, meet. 

All good judges have pronounced the “‘Institutes’’ of Watson 
a masterly production, admitting it to be the best presentation 
and defense of Christian doctrine, in its Evangelico-Arminian 
type, ever exhibited to the religious public. It is too noble a 
monument to the genius, theological learning, and logical 
acumen of that ablest divine of his age for the fear to be enter- 
tained that it will ever cease to be appreciated. It will always 
continue to be read and studied with care by the intelligent 
lovers of Wesleyan theology, whether ministers or laymen. But 
it is well known that there is now an important demand of 
Methodism in this country which ‘‘Watson’s Institutes” are 
not calculated to meet. It is impossible that a work written 
in England, near half a century ago, can be fully adapted to the 
state of religious controversy in the United States at the present 
crisis. , 

Since the great works on theology of which we have made 
mention were written, the status of theological belief and the 
base of religious polemics have been materially changed. 
Calvinism, one system of theological opinion which was so 
critically examined and so ably refuted in the ‘‘Institutes”’ of 
Mr. Watson, has undergone, in this country especially, a great 
modification, both as to the form in which it is set forth and the 
method in which it is defended by its adherents. To meet this 
new state of things, a more modern work is needed, and one 
prepared with an eye to the controversy which has been so rife 
betwee1. Calvinistic divines of the New and Old School type. 

Besides, during the last thirty or forty years, not only has 
great advancement been made in science, but some startling 
and radical theories, connected with both philosophy and 
religion, have been zealously paraded. The insidious guise in 
which some of these heterodox principles are often presented 
renders them but too imposing to communities not well in- 
structed in theological doctrines. The ‘Institutes’? of Mr. 
Watson were written without reference or applicability to these 


PREFACE 3 


pernicious phases of error and, of course, do not furnish the 
proper antidote to the evil. In the work now presented, the 
modern phases of Calvinism, as developed in the United States 
—the distinctive doctrines of that denomination termed 
Campbellites, or Reformers—together with the infidel principles 
of modern German Rationalism, have been specially considered. 

The important desideratum which it is the object of the 
author to supply is a textbook of Wesleyan Arminian theology, 
no less solid, thorough, comprehensive, and critically accurate 
than any of those referred to, and yet beter adapted to popular 
use—a work more systematic and concise in-form, more simple 
and perspicuous in style, and less interlarded with antiquated 
terms and the technicalities of the school men—a work whose 
striking characteristic shall be theology made easy; which, in 
style and method, shall not only be pleasing and easy to young 
persons, private Christians, and theological students, but 
adapted to ministers of all grades. Such are the characteristics 
of the work which it has been the author’s aim, to the best of 
his ability, to produce. 

While in all the various branches pertaining to mere physical 
and intellectual science the master minds of the age have gone 
forth in active and energetic search of improved methods of 
rendering those studies pleasing and easy, it is remarkable that 
in theology, the greatest and most important of all sciences, SO 
little effort has been made in this direction. The science of 
divinity is a sublime system of positive truth and should be set 
forth in an easy, natural, and connected form; and, like gram- 
mar, astronomy, chemistry, or any other science, it should be 
presented in consecutive chapters; and, for the convenience of 
study and examination, should have appropriate questions 
appended to each chapter. 

The author takes pleasure in recording his thankfulness to 
God and to the Church for the encouraging notices and kind 
reception with which his former work has been favored. In 
presenting the present more elaborate work, though it has 
cost him much more labor and research than the former and 
may possess more intrinsic merit, yet such is the character of 
some of the topics discussed that he cannot reasonably expect 
it to receive an equal degree of unqualified approval and com- 
mendation. On the doctrines of Christianity there is a remarka- 


4 PREFACE 


ble unity of faith among ministers and members throughout all 
the connections and modifications of Methodism. But in 
reference to the institutions of Christianity, embracing the 
government and polity of the Church, there is less harmony of 
sentiment. Hence, as this subject, in its various and important 
aspects, is discussed in the work now issued, it is impossible, 
whatever may be its character, that it should escape criticism, 
animadversion, or even opposition, from certain quarters. 
Leaving an intelligent and indulgent public to decide how 
far he has succeeded in accomplishing his object as herein 
specified, he submits this work for their examination, praying 
that all who may favor it with a perusal may be guided into the 
knowledge of all saving truth through Jesus Christ, to whom, 
with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be honor and glory forever 
and ever. Amen! T. N. RALSTON. 


INTRODUCTION 


A CONTINUED demand for Ralston’s ‘‘ Elements of Divinity”’ 
indicates the unusual value of the work and reveals a wholesome 
desire upon the part of preachers to engage in a serious study 
of those exalted themes that have exercised the most earnest 
minds of all generations. While there is an occasional reaction 
against theology, produced by weariness through excessive 
speculation and protracted occupation with problems hitherto 
insoluble, men cannot long desist from the taxing and fascinat- 
ing consideration of questions pertaining to ultimate reality. 
The proper study of mankind is God, and the Christian preacher 
owes it to himself and to his congregation to saturate his mind 
with the truths of the Bible and to seek the aid of theologians 
in putting those truths in systematic form. No amount of 
fervor or practical endeavor can make amends for mental dearth 
and laziness. 

Ralston’s volume is a classic in Methodist theology. It 
occupies a high place among the Arminian works which jarred 
the Calvinistic theology to its foundations. The author ob- 
tained immediate recognition, and soon after its appearance his 
book was placed in the course of study for undergraduate 
preachers. It was not his purpose to produce a substitute for 
Watson’s ‘‘Institutes,’”” which he regarded as the most valuable 
and exhaustive treatise that had been written from the Arminian 
point of view, but rather to treat the subject in popular style 
and to deal with it in the light of conditions that had arisen in 
America. While his work is no less systematic and comprehen- 
sive than Watson’s, it is briefer and less technical, and his some- 
what eloquent and imaginative style of writing relieves the 
tedium of severe reasoning. His departure from the studied 
plainness of Watson and Wesley is not unpleasing to those who 
look for literary graces as well as solid material. 

A glance through any history of doctrine will show that 
theology is a progressive science. Ralston found that a half 
century had brought changes which made it necessary to sup- 


(5) 


6 INTRODUCTION 


plement the great work of Watson with a fresh statement of 
systematic theology, and the reader of this volume will not be 
surprised to note that even greater changes have taken place 
during the half century that has elapsed since it first appeared, 
and that current theology is further removed in method from 
the ‘‘Elements”’ than that work was from the “Institutes.” 
‘‘Bible Theology”’ meant for Ralston the systematic arrange- 
ment of the truths of the Bible, established by proof texts 
taken indiscriminately from Genesis to Revelation without 
regard to time or setting, while ‘‘ Biblical Theology”’’ in the 
terminology of theologians now living means a statement of the 
religious and moral ideas of the Bible as they appear in the 
various stages of growth from the earliest times to their final 
development. This work takes no account of Biblical criticism 
in the present meaning of the term and contains no trace of the 
method followed by such scholars as Schultz with the Old 
Testament and Beyschlag with the New. Investigations in 
archeology, ancient history, anthropology, geology, and other 
realms have yielded discoveries that call for modification of 
various statements and conclusions, and it is only fair to the 
learned author for the reader to keep in mind the fact that more 
than half a century has elapsed since the book was written. 
However, the age of the book constitutes a part of its value. 
All good work in any present must be a continuation of the 
achievements of the past, and no man who is unwilling to ac- 
quaint himself with the classic products in theology is capable 
of making a valuable contribution in that field. Ralston’s 
‘‘Elements of Divinity”’ will long remain as the chief exponent 
of the religious thought of one of the most vital periods in the 
history of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and he who 
would understand the present and build for the future will find 
this book a necessary part of his equipment. Moreover, 
theology progresses more slowly than other sciences, because it 
deals with the elemental passions, needs, and qualities of human 
nature, which changes but little through the ages, and with the 
invisible realities of the spiritual world, and the eternal God, 
and that revelation which came to a head in Jesus Christ, ‘‘who 
is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.” Theology, while 


INTRODUCTION 7 
progressing from age to age, must forever find its norm of truth 
in the Holy Scriptures, which it undertakes to systematize and 
expound. 

This excellent body of divinity, which has nobly served a 
generation, is again sent forth in the confident hope that it will 
prove no less serviceable to the sons than to the fathers. 

GILBERT T. ROWE. 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


PART I.—DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK 1.—DOCTRINES RELATING TO GOD 


CHAPTER I.- 
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 

Tue term God is Anglo-Saxon, and in that language it was used, not 
only to signify the Supreme Being, but also good. By this we learn 
that, in the apprehension of our ancestors, the Great Supreme was pos- 
sessed of superlative excellency, so as to warrant the emphatic appella- 
tion of good. 

The Hebrew word in the first chapter of Genesis, translated God, is 
Elohim, a plural noun, which, according to Dr. A. Clarke, the learned 
have traced to the Arabic root alaha, which means to worship or adore. 
Hence, it denotes the Supreme Being, the only proper object of religious 
worship and adoration. The word in Greek is Theos, and in Latin 
Deus, which in those languages signify the Supreme Divinity, or Ruler 
of the universe. 

In the Scriptures, numerous expressive terms are used designating 

the being of God. He is called— 

Jehovah—the Self-existent God; Shaddai—the Almighty; Adon— 
Supporter, Lord, Judge; Rachum—the Merciful Being; E/—the 
Strong, or Mighty; Elohim—Gods, or Adorable Persons; Elion—the 
Most High; El-Subaoth—God of hosts; Ehieh—I am, I will be, Inde- 
pendent; Chanun—the Gracious One; Rab—the Great or Mighty One; 
Chesed—the Bountiful Being; Erech-Apayim—the Long-suffering Being 
Emeth—the True One. 

(9) 


10 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.1 


As a brief explanation of our general idea of God, we quote from 
Bishop Pearson, as follows: “The notion of a Deity doth expreasly 
signify a being or nature of infinite perfection; and the infinite per- 
fection of a nature or being consisteth in this, that it be absolutely 
and essentially necessary, an actual being of itself; and potential or 
causative of all beings besides itself, independent from any other, 
upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are 
governed.” 

In the language of another: “God is a being, and not any kind of 
being; but a substance, which is the foundation of other beings. And 
‘not only a substance, but perfect. Yet many beings are perfect in their 
kind, yet limited and finite. But God is absolutely, fully, and every 
way infinitely perfect; and therefore above spirits, above angels, who 
are perfect comparatively. God’s infinite perfection includes all the 
attributes, even the most excellent. It excludes all dependency, bor- 
rowed existence, composition, corruption, mortality, contingency, igno- 
rance, unrighteousness, weakness, misery, and all imperfections what- 
ever. It includes necessity of being, independency, perfect unity, 
simplicity, immensity, eternity, immoftality; the most perfect life, 
knowledge, wisdom, integrity, power, glory, bliss—and all these in the 
highest degree. We cannot pierce into the secrets of this eternal Being. 
Our reason comprehends but little of him, and when it can proceed no 
farther, faith comes in, and we believe far more than we can under- 
stand; and this our belief is not contrary to reason; but reason itself 
dictates unto us, that we must believe far more of God than it can 
inform us of.’ (Lawson’s Theo-Politica.) 

It is a remarkable fact, that the Scriptures nowhere attempt to prove 
the existence of God; nor do they pretend to teach it as a truth before 
unknown, by declaring in so many words that God exists; but every- 
where take it for granted, as a matter already understood and believed. 
From this fact we may justly infer that the being of God, in the early 
ages of the world, was so palpably manifest as to be denied or doubted 
by none. How this radical and important truth originally became sv 
clearly and forcibly impressed upon man, we need be at no loss to 
determine, when we reflect on the condition of our first parents, and the 
intimate relation subsisting between them and their Creator in the gar- 
den of paradise. 3 

In philosophy, it is universally admitted that we derive our knowl- 
edye of the material and intellectual universe through the mediums of 
sensation and consciousness; and that the testimony thus presented is 
af the strongest possible character. That the clear and satisfactery 


oh. i.) THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. ll 


knowledge of God, possessed by Adam in paradise, was communicated 
and confirmed by both these sources of testimony, is fully apparent from 
the Mosaic history. Man was made “in the image, and after the like- 
ness, of God.” Consequently, he was capable of immediate intercourse 
and intimate communion with his Creator. Thus we learn that he 
“walked and talked with God.” He had familiar access to the divine 
presence, and, at the same time, must have felt within his pure and 
unfallen soul a deep consciousness of the divine existence and perfec- 
tions. Thus it may be seen that his knowledge of God was so direct 
and forcible, that he could no more doubt upon this subject than he 
could question his own existence. 

That a matter so interesting and important as a knowledge of the 
existence and character of God, should be carefully communicated from 
father to son, through the successive generations from Adam to Noah, 
is reasonable to infer. But for the better security of this important 
object, and that the stream of religious truth, which we have thus seen 
breaking forth at the fountain, might neither become entirely wasted, 
nor too much contaminated with error, tributary accessions were, no 
doubt, derived from the divine communications with Enoch and Noah; 
so that, after the ungodly race had been swept away by the general 
deluge, and the ark rested upon Mount Ararat, the patriarch and his 
family could come forth once more to stand upon the earth, and erect 
an altar to the true and living God. And thus, from this family, we 
readily see how the light of tradition might accompany the dispersed 
tribes, in their devious and extensive wanderings, affording them, at 
least, a faint glimmering ray of truth, and redeeming them from that 
gross and stupid ignorance which otherwise might have shrouded in 
impenetrable darkness every idea of a superior and superintending 
Power. 

That “the world by wisdom knew not God,” is a Scripture truth, 
and whether mere human reason, independent of revelation, could 
ever have originated the idea, much less ascertained the character, of 
God, may well be doubted. The wisest of the heathen philosophers 
have confessed their indebtedness to tradition for their most sublime 
and important doctrines upon this subject. The most flattering theo- 
ries of men, with regard to the boasted achievements of human rea- 
son, in reference to this matter, must be admitted to be founded upon 
mere hypothesis and conjecture. No philosopher, in any age, has 
ever pretended to have acquired his first idea of a God by a process 
of rational investigation; but in every instance where a course of rea 
soning has been instituted in favor of the being of God, it has been 


12 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {P.i 3.4 


not to arrive at the knowledge of the fact, as an original truth, but 
merely to corruborate and confirm a truth previously known and 
acknowledged. ‘ 

Could we suppose man to be placed in a situation so wholly destitute 
of the light of revelation, either from tradition or any other source, as 
to have no idea of God, it is difficult to conceive how he could ever 
engage in a course of reasoning to demonstrate the existence of that 
of which, as yet, he had no idea. Indeed, the clear probability seems 
to us to be, that thus circumstanced, he would grope upon the earth in 
the thickest darkness, without advancing a single step toward gaining 
a knowledge of the being or character of his Creator, till he would lie 
down in death like “the beasts which perish.” Yet it is clear from the 
Scriptures that, situated as we are, encircled by the light of revelation 
in its full blaze, or even as the pagan nations generally are, only favored 
with the dim light of tradition, we may all look up “through nature’s 
works to nature’s God ;” and by the exercise of our reasoning faculties, 
discover in the world around us a numerous array of weighty argu- 
ments in favor of the existence of the Deity. 

Arguments in proof of the being of God may be derived from the 
following sources : 

I. From the testimony of the nations of the earth. 
I]. From the testimony of the works of nature. 

IIT. From the testimony of revelation. 

I. We argue from the testimony of the nations of the earth. 

It is a fact well known, and very generally acknowledged, that there 
is scarce a single nation or people known to the enlightened world, 
either in the present or any former age, entirely destitute of the knowl- 
edge of a great Supreme Ruler of the universe. “No age so distant, 
no country so remote, no people so barbarous, but gives a sufficient tes- 
timony of this truth. When the Roman eagle flew over most parts of 
the habitable world, they met with atheism nowhere, but rather by 
their miscellany deities at Rome, which grew together with their victo- 
ries, they showed “no nation was without its God. And since the later 
urt of navigation, improved, hath discovered another part of the world, 
with which no forme: commerce hath been known, although the customs 
o! the people be much different, and their manner of religion hold 
small correspondency with any in these parts of the world professed, 
yet in this all agree that some religious observances they retain, and a 
Divinity they acknowledge.” (Pearson on the Creed.) 

How, we ask, did this knowledge originate? We see nations the 
most diverse from each other in their history and character, their man- 


Ch. i.) THE EXISTENCE OF QOD. 18 


ners and customs, separated by mountains and oceans, by burning sands 
or drifting snows, and holding no intercourse with each other for ages, 
all testifying with united voice their belief in a great superintending 
Power. How can this harmony of sentiment be accounted for? It is 
true, we see much diversity in the number and character of the divini- 
ties adored throughout the heathen world. Some may maintain but one 
great Supreme, while others swell the number of their gods to thousands, 
partitioning out the dominion of the universe among the different mem- 
bers of a numerous family, generally allowing to some one, whether 
“ Jehovah, Jove, or Lord,” a superiority over all the others. Yet, in all 
this huge mass of inconsistency, contradiction, and absurdity, as seen 
in pagan mythology and idolatrous worship, there is a harmony in 
one point: they all agree that a divinity or divinities preside over the 
universe. 

To object to the argument from this source, on account of the errors 
of paganism, would be as unreasonable as to deny the existence of a 
true coin, from the fact that it had been extensively counterfeited. The 
number of counterfeits would only be a proof that a genuine coin existed ; 
otherwise, how could it have been counterfeited? The number of the 
false gods in the world presents a presumptive argument in favor of 
the existence of a true God; otherwise, how can we account for the 
general prevalence of idolatry? The only rational solution upon this 
subject is a reference to tradition, and an admission that all nations 
originally had a common origin; and, previously to their dispersion, 
were possessed of a system of religious doctrine and worship, which, in 
their long-continued and extensive wanderings, they have never entirely 
forgotten. But then we shall still be at a loss to account for the origin 
of the tradition.. Whence originally came this religious knowledge? 
—this idea of a God—of a superior and superintending Providence? 
Admit that God originally made a revelation of himself to man, and 
the problem is at once solved. But deny this,and we may wander 
in uncertainty and conjecture forever, Thus we may gather from the 
testimony furnished by the nations of the earth at large, a strong pre- 
sumptive argument in proof of the existence of God. 

II. The second source of argument upon this subject is, the works of 
God, as seen in nature around us. 

From this souree human reason may deduce an argument which 
may defy the assaults of skepticism and sophistry. Infidelity, it is true, 
has long made her boast of reason, and scoffed at religion as a thing 
only suitable for the sickly enthusiast, or the narrow-minded higot. Te 
auch vain hoasters we reply, in the words of Dr. Young— 


14 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B. 2 


“ Wrong not the Christian, think not reason yours: 
'T is reason our great Master holds so dear; 
’T is reason’s injured rights his wrath resents; 
To save lost reason’s life he poured his own. 
Believe, and show the reason of a man; 
Believe, and taste the pleasure of a God.” 


Although many truths of revelation are too profound for human wis 
dom te fathom, yet nothing contained in that inspired volume is repug- 
nat to the principles of sound philosophy and correct reason. In no 
department of theological science have the powers of human reason 
been more intensely engaged than in the demonstration of the existence 
of God. This subject has extensively employed many of the most acute 
divines; and so satisfactory have been their arguments, that he who 
can examine the one-thousandth part which has been written upon this 
subject by the master-spirits for a century or two past, and dare to call 
himself an atheist, may justly be considered as much beyond the influ- 
ence of reason as a stock or a stone. 

Inspiration has declared, “The fool hath said in his heart, There 
is no God.” And surely, to open our eyes upon the material world 
around us, and then to deny that it is the product of a great designing 
Cause, evinces the height of folly and stupidity. We cannot doubt 
either our own existence or that of the world around us. We may ask, 
Whence came we? If we trace our ancestry back for a vast number 
of generations, we may still inquire, Whence came the first of our spe- 
cies? Again, look forth upon the immense universe. Whence those 
mighty orbs which roll in solemn grandeur? Whence this earth; its 
oceans, and its continents; its teeming millions of sentient and intelli- 
gent beings? Every effect must have an adequate cause, and can so 
stupendous a work exist uncaused ? Could worlds and systems of worlds 
have sprung up of themselves? 

The poet has said: 


“Of God above, or man below, 
What can we reason, but from what we know?” 


1. We know that we exist, and that the universe around us exists. 
From this we conclude that something must be eternal. “Had there 
e’er been nought, nought still had been.” If there be nothing supposed 
to be eternal, then every thing in existence must once have commenced 
that existence. And if so, the cause of its existence must either be 
itself or something extrinsic to itself. If it caused itself to begin to 
exist, then it must have existed before it was. and been prior to itself, 


Ch i.) THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 1G) 


which is absurd. But if it was caused to exist by something extrinsic 
to itself, then that extrinsic something must have existed before it did 
exist, and in such sense as to exert a power sufficient to produce other 
things, which is also absurd. Hence, as something now exists, it irre- 
sistibly follows that something did eternally exist. 

2. That which eternally existed must be a se/f-existent being—that 
is, no other being could have caused it to begin to exist; for, as yet, no 
other being could have been in existence; and to suppose that one being 
could cause another to begin to exist before it had any existence itself, 
as already shown, is absurd. 

3. That eternal and self-existent being must also have existed inde- 
pendently; for that which existed prior to, and uncaused by, every thing 
else, as it was not dependent on any thing else for the commencement 
of its being, so neither can it be for its continuance in being. 

4, That eternal, self-existent, ana independent being, must also exist 
necessarily. For if it has eternally existed, without having been caused 
to begin to exist, either by itself or any thing else, then it follows that 
its existence depends solely on the eternal necessity of its own nature, 
so that it is impossible that it ever should not have been, or that it ever 
thould cease to be. 

5. That eternal, self-exvistent, independent, and necessary being, must 
also be self-active—that is, capable of acting so as to produce other 
things, without being acted upon by any other being. As we have 
already proved that there must be something eternal, in order to account 
for the being of those things which we know do exist, it follows, also, 
that that eternal being must be capable of acting, or putting forth 
energy, so as to produce other things; otherwise, no other thing ever 
could have commenced existence. 

6. That eternal, self-existent, independent, necessary, and _ self-active 
being, whose existence we have already proved, must be possessed not 
only of power sufficient to produce all things else, but also of intelligence, 
wisdom, and every other perfection necessary for the creation, preserva- 
tion, and government of the universe. 

For, to suppose something eternal, as the originating cause of the 
existence of all other things, yet, to admit that the eternal being sup- 
posed is not self-possessed of every attribute, quality, or perfection, 
requisite for the contrivance and production of all originated existences, 
would be as far from giving a satisfactary account for the origin of 
things, as if we were to deny that any thing did exist from eternity. 
To admit the eternal existence of a cause, and yet to deny that it is an 
adequate cause for the production of the effect in question, is no better 


16 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.1 


than to deny the existence of any cause whatever. Hence we must 
admit that there exists an eternal, self-existent, independent, self-active, 
intelligent Being, who, by his own unoriginated powers, arose in his 
majesty, and created all things. 

We have, therefore, only to open our eyes upon the grandeur, har- 
mony, order, beauty, and perfection of the works of God around us, and 
we sce everywhere the demonstrations of the divine existence. This 
point is most beautifully illustrated by the inspired author of the nine- 
teenth Psalm: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
ment sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night 
unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language where 
their voice is not heard,” ete. Mr. Addison’s paraphrase upon this 
Psalm is familiar to every one: “The spacious firmament on high,” etc. 
This is not only one of the most beautiful poetic effusions in the English 
language, but a masterly argument—presenting, in its strongest light, 
and in few words, the entire confirmatory testimony of nature, uttering 
with her ten thousand tongues, “The hand that made us is divine.” 

The beauty, harmony, regularity, and order, in nature’s works, attest 
the divinity of their origin. Behold the beautiful adaptation of all 
things to each other; the harmonious revolutions of the mighty spheres; 
the skill and wisdom displayed in the constitutions of all organized 
beings; consider well the mechanism of thy own frame; see how 
“fearfully and wonderfully thou art made;” think of the mysterious 
union between this house of clay and its immortal tenant, and doubt, 
if thou canst, the being of a God, 


“QO! lives there, heaven, beneath thy dread expanse, 
One hopeless, dark idolater of chance?” 


The argument for the being of a God from the works of nature, opens 
0 our view an extensive and interesting field. So that, whether we 
contemplate the land or water, the surrounding elements or revolving 
seasons, we behold everywhere the deep impress of the Deity; and, 
kindling with the flame of pure devotion, our hearts should beat in 
hatmony with the enraptured bard— 


“ Motionless torrents! silent cataracts! 
Who made you glorious as the gates of heaven 
Beneath the keen full moon? Who bade the sun 
Clothe you with rainbows? Who with living flowers, 
Of lovelier hue, spread garlands at your feet? 
God! let the torrents, like a shout of nations. 
Answer, and let the ice-plains echo, God * 


Oh. i.) THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. Mi 


God! sing, ye meadow-streams, with gladsome voice , 
Ye pine-groves, with your soft and soul-like sound! 
And they, too, have a voice, yon piles of snow, 

And in their perilous fall shall thunder, God!” 


III. In the third and last place, revelation, with all the force of its 
authority, declares the being and character of God. 

It is true, that the force of the evidence from this source will only be 
admitted by such as acknowledge the truth of revelation. But to sucl 
as are not prepared to reject, as an imposture, the record of Holy Writ, 
the sacred pages furnish the clearest and most impressive demonstra- 
tions on this subject. The book of Genesis opens with this sublime 
announcement: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the 
earth.” From the commencement to the conclusion of the sacred 
volume, through the successive dispensations, by “signs and wonders, 
and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost,” the clearest possible 
evidence has been given to exhibit the being of God, and proclaim his 
dominion over heaven and earth. Thus we may see that although the 
Bible nowhere, in express words, professes to teach that there is a God, 
yet its testimony in confirmation of the truth of that position is impress- 
ive and irresistible. In the sacred history we see the elements obedient 
to his word. “The winds and the sea obey him ;” the earth trembles; 
and the dead come forth to life, as demonstrations of the being and 
power of Him who made them all. 

Thus, while the Bible does not formally affirm the existence of God, 
yet it teaches that existence in the most forcible manner. In proclaim- 
ing that God created the shining heavens above us—the sun, moon, 
and stars, that mirror the wisdom, power, and glory of their Author ; 
nature, in its illimitable range of beauty, harmony, and utility ; exist- 
ence, in its endless diversity, and its boundless extent—in proclaiming 
all these grand and mysterious entities, as the workmanship of God’s 
hand, has not the Bible, in the most emphatic form, demonstrated the 
being of the great and unoriginated First Cause of all that is? 

How can “the heavens declare the glory of God,” and not at the 
same time demonstrate his existence? If nature, in all its works, pro- 
claims the being of God, so does the Bible, in every page on which hig 
stupendous doings are recorded. If, in looking forth on nature, we 
read on every leaf and every cloud, on every mote and every globe, 
“The hand that made us is divine;” so, in perusing the sacred page, 
we trace, in every record of creation, in every event of divine provi- 
dence, in every interposition of divine power, and in every dispensa- 
tion of divine grace and mercy, the strongest possible demonstration 

2, 


18 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i B. 1 


of the existence of the great I Am—the God whu was “before all 
things,” and by whom “all things consist.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER I. 


QuEsTION 1. What was the import of the 


2. 


3. 


term God with the Anglo-Saxons? 
What is the Hebrew word rendered 
God in the first chapter of Genesis? 
What was its root in the Arabic, and 
what did it imply? 


. What are the words for God in Greek 


and Latin, and what do they im- 
ply? 


. By what other names is God called 


in Scripture? 


. What is embraced in our general idea 


of God? 


. Do the Scriptures professedly teach 


that there is a God? 
Was man originally fully impressed 
with the being cf God? 


9. 
10. 


1k. 


16 
17 


By what means? 

How was this knowledge secured to 
Noah? 

How may it have extended, in some 
degree, to all nations? 


. Has human reason, independent of 


revelation, ever acquired a knowl- 
edge of the being of God? 


. May all nations derive arguments 


from nature and reason in favor 
of the existence of God? 


. From what sources may proofs of 


the divine existence be derived? 


. What is the argument from the tea 


timony of nations? 
From the testimony of nature? 
From the testimonv of revelation 7 


» 9 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 19 


CHAPTER II. 
THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 


In this chapter, we propose to consider the Altributes or Perfections 
of the Divine Being. . 

God is infinite, but man is finite; hence we may infer, at once, that 
it is impossible for us thoroughly to comprehend Jehovah. That which 
comprehends must be greater than that which is comprehended. But 
God is infinitely superior to all created intelligences; therefore, it, is 
impossible that any should thoroughly comprehend his nature. The 
incomprehensibility of God was admitted by the heathen philosophers, 
as is beautifully shown in the history of Simonides. This philosopher 
being asked by his prince, “ What is God?” demanded first a day, then 
a week, then a month, to consider the subject; but finally left the ques- 
tion unanswered, declaring that “the more he examined the subject, 
the more he was convinced of its incomprehensibility.” 

Our imbecility on this subject is forcibly portrayed by Zophar, in the 
eleventh chapter of the book of Job: “Canst thou by searching find out 
God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high 
as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou 
know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth, and broader than 
the sea.” 

To comprehend the divine essence is impossible. All we can do is, 
to consider the attributes of God, so far as he has been pleased to reveal 
them to man. In this sense of the word, it is both our privilege and 
duty to “acquaint ourselves with him.” 

By many divines, the attributes of God have been divided into dif- 
ferent classes. They have been considered as absolute or relative; posi- 
tive or negative; proper or metaphorical; internal or external; natural or 
noral; communicable or incommunicable; and a late able and volumin- 
“"s writer contemplates them in five classes—as primary, essential, nat- 
ural, moral, or consummate. But these divisions we consider unneces- 
sary, and most of them of questionable propriety, and more calculated 
to perplex and mystify than to simplify the subject. Therefore, we 
shall adopt no classification whatever. 


20 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.1 


Before we enter particularly into the discussion of the several attri- 
butes, we remark, that the divine nature is not to be understood ag 
divided into separate and distinct parts; but all the attributes are to 
be considered as pertaining fully, and at the same time, to the one undi- 
vided essence. Nor are we to suppose that there is any discrepancy 
between them. By no means. The divine justice and mercy cannot be 
opposed to each other; but all the attributes of God are united in the 
most perfect harmony. “They sre called attributes, because God catrib- 
utes them to, and affirms them of, himself; properties because we con- 
ceive them proper to God, and such as can be predicated only of him, 
xo that by them »~ distinguish him from all other beings; perfrtions, 
because they are the several representations of that one pe tection 
which is himself; names and terms, because they express and signify 
something of his essence; notions, because they are so many epprehen- 
sions of his being as we conceive of him in our minds.” (Lawson’s 
Theo-Politica. ) 

In the presentation of a list of the divine attributes, it will appear 
that their number may be increased or diminished, accordingly as we 
are general or minute in our division; and, after all, we cannot say that 
we have a perfect knowledge even of their number. For who can tell 
what properties may belong to the divine nature, of which Heaven has 
not seen fit to make any revelation to us, and of which we can form no 
conception? Therefore, all at which we shall aim is, to present a faint 
sutline of the divine perfections, as we find them delineated in the Holy 
Scriptures. The following are therein clearly portrayed, viz: 

I. Unity. Tl. Spirituality. TI. Eternity. 1V. Omniscience. V 
Wisdom. VI. Omnipotence. VII. Omnipresence. VIII. Immutability 
IX. Holiness. X. Truth. XI. Justice. XII. Goodness. 

I. Unrry. That there is but one God, is clearly revealed in the fol- 
lowing passages: Isa. xlv. 21,22: “There is no God else beside me. 1 
am God, and there is none else.” Deut. vi. 4: “Hear, O Israel! the 
Lord our God is one Lord;” and iv. 35: “The Lord he is God; there 
is none else beside him.” Ps. 1xxxvi. 10: “For thou art great, and doest 
wondrous things; thou art God alone.” 1 Cor. viii. 4: “There is none 
other Ged but one.” Eph. iv.6: “One God and Father of all.” 1 Cor. 
viii. 6: “But to us there is but one God.” 

The unity of God, a doctrine so essential to true worship, *s thus 
distinctly and repeatedly declared. A plurality of gods is the leading 
error of paganism. When once the vessel is launched forth from the 
safe moorings of eternal truth, how wildly will she toss upon the sea of 
error and delusion! Thus, when the heathen nations gave up the unity 


Ch. ii.) THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 21 


of God, how soon did they plunge into the dark gulf of polytheism! 
“They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made 
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creep- 
ing things.” Well has the apostle said: “Their foolish heart was dark- 
ened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” For surely 
reason, if not woefully perverted, would say, There can be but one Great 
Supreme. 

J[. Spiriruaurry. That the divine essence is purely spiritual, is a 
doctrine clearly revealed. In John iv. 24, it is declared that “God is 
a Spirit.” 2 Cor. iii. 17: “Now the Lord is that Spirit.” These pas- 
sages sufficiently establish the spirituality of the divine essence. But 
how infinitely does the refined purity of his spiritual nature transcend 
the utmost grasp of finite minds! Who can analyze this spirituae 
essence? But the mystery involved in the spirituality of the divine 
essence van be no argument against the existence of that spiritual 
essence, We can comprehend matter only in reference to its properties: 
we know nothing as to its essence. How, then, can we comprehend the 
spiritual essence of God? We can be more certain of nothing than we 
are of the fact, that something exists of an essence entirely distinct from 
matter, and possessing properties totally unlike those of matter. We 
know as certainly as we can know any thing, that mere matter does not 
possess intelligence. It can neither think, nor reason, nor feel. It can 
have no consciousness of happiness or misery, of right or wrong. And 
yet itis impossible for us to doubt that something does exist possessed 
of all these powers. We have within ourselves the evidence of this 
fact, too overwhelming to be doubted. This, then, is what we mean by 
spirit. 

Our Saviour says: “God is a Spirit.” However incomprehensible 
may be the nature of this Spirit, yet it is indisputable that our Lord 
used the term in contradistinction from matter. Hence, not only 
reason, but Scripture, disproves the theory of a material Deity. Pan- 
theism and materialism, in all their forms and phases, are alike repug- 
nant to both reason and revelation. In their nature and tendency they 
are subversive of all religion. The eternal existence of an infinite. 
personal Spirit, is the only theory of religious belief adapted to the con- 
dition of man, as an accountable but dependent moral agent. As cer- 
tain as it is that matter does not possess in itself thought, and reason, 
and skill, and the power of self-motion, so sure is it that there exists, as 
the Author, Creator, and Upholder of all things, a Being whose nature 
is pure Spirit. The nature of this purely spiritual essence is a theme 
too wonderful for us. But when we think of the immensity, ana 


22 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B. 1 


beauty, and grandeur of his works, the vastness and the majesty of his 
dominion, we can only conceive of him as a pure, unoriginated, and 
infinite Spirit. Hence, as certain as it is that God exists, so certain is 
it that spirituality is one of his essential attributes. 

IIL. Ereryrry, or duration without beginning or end, is set forth as 
an attribute of God. Ps. xe. 2: “Before the mountains were brought 
forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from 
everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Ps. cli. 24-27: ‘<I said, O my 
God, take me not away in the midst of my days: thy years are through- 
out all generations. Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth ; 
and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but 
thou shalt endure; yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; asa 
vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed; but thou 
art the same, and thy years shall have no end.” Isa. lvii. 15: “For thus 
saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity.” 1 Tim. vi. 16: 
“Who only hath immortality.” Deut. xxxiii. 27: “The eternal God is 
thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.” 1 Tim. i. 17: 
“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be 
honor and glory forever and ever.” Ps. evi. 48: “Blessed be the Lord 
God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting.” Isa. x]. 28: “Hast thou 
not known, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the 
Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary ?” 

The above passages abundantly exhibit the eternity of the Deity. 
In the contemplation of this attribute, we are overwhelmed with the 
immensity of the subject. Every thing around us, all that we behold, 
once had « beginning; the earth, the sea, the mountains and hills, yea, 
the angels themselves, are but of yesterday compared with God. Of 
him only may it be said, that he always was. Let imagination take her 
boldest sweep into that eternity which was, yet she never can reach the 
period in which God did not exist. Then let her whirl upon her lofty 
wing, and dart, with the velocity of thought, for millions upon millions of 
ages, into the immeasurable range of eternity in the future, but she never 
ean reach the period in which God will cease to be. In an emphatic 
sense, applicable to no creature, may it be said that God is eternal. 

The voice of reason abundantly corroborates revelation upon this 
subject. For, had not God existed from all eternity, it would have 
been impossible for his existence ever to have commenced. There could 
have been no originating cause; and an effect without a cause is unpht- 
losophical and absurd. If any thing now exists, something must have 
been efernal; but we are assured of the present existence of things, 
therefore reason irresistibly concludes that God ts eternal. 


Ch. ii.) THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 28 


IV. Omniscrence. This essential attribute is forcibly presented in 
the following passages:—Heb. iv. 18: “Neither is there any creature 
that is not manifest in his sight; but all things are naked and opened 
unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Acts xv. 18: “Known 
unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Ps. 
exxxix. 1-4: “O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou 
knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my 
thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and 
art. acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my 
tongue, but lo, O Lord, thow knowest it altogether.” Ps. exxxix. 12. 
“Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee, but the night shineth as the 
day; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.’ 1 Chron. 
xxviii. 9: “For the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the 
imaginations of the thoughts.” Ps. exlvii. 5: “Great is our Lord, and 
of great power: his understanding ts infinite.” 

Thus, we perceive clearly that God possesses the attribute of knowl- 
edge in the highest possible perfection. With him there can be nothing 
difficult, nothing mysterious; but all things are alike plain to his under- 
standing and open to his view. 

This perfect knowledge is restricted to no particular part of his 
dominions, but extends alike to heaven, earth, and hell; yea, through- 
out the illimitable bounds of immensity. Nor may we suppose that it 
is applied only to things which, according to the judgment of finite 
capacities, are of consequence and importance. It extends to all things, 
great and small. The insect, as well as the angel, is perfectly known 
in all its mysterious organization and minute history. 

The infinite knowledge of God not only comprehends every thing, 
great and small, whether animate or inanimate, material or immaterial, 
throughout the immensity of space, but also throughout the infinite 
periods of duration. All things, past and future, are just as clearly 
seen, and as fully comprehended, by the omniscient God, as the plainest 
events of the present. 

Again: this knowledge is not to be considered as having a possible 
existence in some things, and an actual existence in others, accordingly 
as they may be deemed more or less important, so as to deserve, or not 
deserve, the divine attention; but, in all cases, it is an actually existing 
knowledge. Indeed, the power to know, and knowledge itself, are quite 
distinct things. The former constitutes no part of the attribute of 
omniscience, but is properly embraced in the attribute of omnipotence, 
Therefore, to say that God does not actually know all things, but, in 
reference to some things, only possesses the power to know them, with- 


24 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.1 


out choosing to exercise that power, would be plainly to deny him the 
perfection of omniscience. 1 

Again: the knowledge of Deity must be understood perfectly to 
accord with the things known, not only in reference to their nature, 
but also in reference to the period of their existence. He sees and 
knows things as they ave, whether present, past, or future; and not as 
they are not. Thus, to suppose that he sees and knows past events as 
future, or future events as past, would be absurd. And it would seem 
equally a »surd to suppose that he sees or knows either past or future 
events as present when they are not so in fact. It is true that “all 
things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have 
to do”’—the past and the future are seen with as much clearness as 
the present; but to say that they are seen as present, when in fact they 
are not present, would imply that God does not see and know things as 
they really are; and, consequently, that his knowledge is imperfect. 
The sentiment that “with God there is one eternal now,” if it be under- 
stood to mean only that present, past, and future, are all seen at the 
same time with equal clearness, is both rational and scriptural; but if 
it be understood to imply that with Deity, past, present, and future, are 
all the same, and that duration, with him, is essentially different in 
itself from what it is with us, and does not flow on in a regular succes- 
sion of periods, the idea is either unintelligible or absurd. 

Once more: the knowledge of God, although it has no influence upon 
the nature of things, so as to render that necessary which would other- 
wise he contingent, yet it sees them as they are; necessary events as 
necessary, and contingent events as contingent. But in reference to 
contingent events, we are not to infer any imperfection in the divine 
prescience. For while God sees that an event, because he has made it 
contingent, may take place or not, according to the circumstances upon 
which the contingency turns, yet the divine penetration darts through 
the maze of contingencies, and knows certainly whether the event will 
take place or not, and all about the circumstances by which it shall he 
determined. 

Thus we conclude, from Scripture and reason, that the great Creator 
of all sees the end from the beginning, and possesses knowledge in 
absolute perfection. 

Upon the divine prescience of contingent events, we subjoin the fol- 
lowing remarks from Mr. Watson: “The great fallacy in the argument, 
that the certain prescience of a moral action destroys its contingent 
nature, lies in supposing that contingency and certainty are the oppo- 
sites of each other. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that a word which is of 


Oh. ii.) ¢ THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 25 


figurative etymology, and which consequently can only have an ideal 
application to such subjects, should have grown into common use in 
this discussion, because it is more liable, on that account, to present 
itself to different minds under different shades of meaning. If, however, 
the term contingent, in this controversy, has any definite meaning at all, 
as applied to the moral actions of men, it must mean their freedom, and 
stands opposed, not to certainty, but to necessity. A free action is @ 
voluntary one; and an action which results from the choice of the 
agent is distinguished from a necessary one in this, that it might not 
have been, or have been otherwise, according to the self-determining 
power of the agent. It is with reference to this specific quality of a 
free action that the term contingency is used—it might have been other- 
wise; in other words, it was not necessitated. Contingency in moral 
actions is, therefore, their freedom, and is opposed, not to certainty, but 
to necessity. The very nature of this controversy fixes this as the pre- 
cise meaning of the term. The question is not, in point of fact, about 
the certainty of moral actions; that is, whether they wi// happen or not, 
but about the nature of them, whether free or constrained, whether they 
must happen or not. Those who advocate this theory care not about 
the certainty of actions, simply considered; that is, whether they will 
take place or not: the reason why they object to a certain prescience 
of moral actions is, that they conclude that such a prescience renders 
them necessary. It is the quality of the action for which they contend, 
not whether it will happen or not. If contingency meant uncertainty— 
the sense in which such theorists take it—the dispute would be at an 
end. But though an uncertain action cannot be foreseen as certain, a 
free, unnecessitated action may; for there is nothing in the knowledge 
of the action, in the least, to affect its nature. Simple knowledge is, 
in no sense, a cause of action, nor can it be conceived to be causal, 
unconnected with exerted power; for mere knowledge, therefore, an 
action remains free or necessitated, as the case may be. A necessitatea 
action is not made a voluntary one by its being foreknown; a free 
action is not made a necessary one. Free actions foreknown will not, 
therefore, cease to he contingent. But how stands the case as to their 
certainty? Precisely on the same ground. The certainty of a neces- 
sary action, foreknown, does not result from the knowledge of the 
action, but from the operation of the necessitating cause; and, in like 
manner, the certainty of a free action does not result from the knowl- 
edge of it, which is no cause at all, but from the voluntary cause; that 
is, the determination of the will. It alters not the case in the least, to 
eay thet the voluntary action might have been otherwise. Had it been 


26 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. UTES Bae 


otherwise, the knowledge of it would have been otherwise; but as the 
will, which gives birth to the action, is not dependent upon the previous 
knowledge of God, but the knowledge of the action upon foresight of 
the choice of the will, neither the will nor the act is controlled by the 
knowledge; and the action, though foreseen, is still free or contingent. 

“The foreknowledge of God has, then, no influence upon either the 
freedom or the certainty of actions, for this plain reason, that it is 
knowledge, and not influence; and actions may be certainly foreknown, 
without their being rendered necessary by that foreknowledge. But 
here it is said, if the result of an absolute contingency be certainly fore- 
known, it can have no other result, it cannot happen otherwise. This 
is not the true inference. It wild not happen otherwise; but, I ask, why 
ean it not happen otherwise? Can is an expression of potentiality; it 
denotes power or possibility. The objection is, that it is not possible 
that the action should otherwise happen. But why not? What deprives 
it of that power? If a necessary action were in question, it could not 
otherwise happen than as the necessitating cause shall compel; but 
then that would arise from the necessitating cause solely, and not from 
prescience of the action, which is not causal. But if the action be free, 
and it enter into the very nature of a voluntary action to be uncon- 
strained, then it might have happened in a thousand other ways, or not 
have happened at all: the foreknowledge of it no more affects its nature 
in this case than in the other. All its potentiality, so to speak, still 
remains, independent of foreknowledge, which neither adds to its power 
of happening otherwise, nor diminishes it. But then we are told that 
the prescience of it, in that case, must be uncertain; not unless any 
person can prove that the divine prescience is unable to dart through 
all the workings of the human mind, all its comparison of things in the 
judgment, all the influences of motives on the affections, all the hesi- 
tancies and haltings of the will, to its final choice. ‘Such knowledge is 
too wonderful for us, but it is the knowledge of Him who understandeth 
the thoughts of man afar off.” (Watson’s Institutes.) 

V. Wispom. In strictness of analysis, the wisdom of God is only a 
modification of his knowledge, and might with propriety be included 
as a subdivision under the head of Omniseience. But as wisdom is so 
naportant a phase of knowledge that it is spoken of in Scripture in 
contradistinction from it, we allow it a separate consideration here. St. 
Paul evidently distinguishes wisdom from knowledge, in the following 
passages :—“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge 
of God!” Rom. xi. 83. “For to one is given, by the Spirit, the word 
of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit.” 


Oh. in.} THE ATTRIBULES OF GOD. 27 


1 Cor. xii. 8 Hence, as that peculiar aspect of knowledge indicated 
by the term wisdom, is, by the sacred writers, distinguished from knowl- 
edge, in its more restricted acceptation, we cannot err in following so 
authoritative an example. 

Dr. Webster has correctly defined wisdom to be, “The right use or 
exercise of knowledge. The choice of laudable ends, and of the best 
means to accomplish them.” 

To show that this attribute is ascribed to God in Scripture, only a 
few quotations are necessary. “In whom are hid all the treasures of 
wisdom and knowledge.” Col. ii. 3. “To the intent that now unto the 
principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the 
Church the manifold wisdom of God.” Eph. iii. 10. “ Now unto the King 
eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever 
and ever.” 1 Tim. i. 17. “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory 
and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever.” Jude 25. 

The result of this teaching is, that God possesses, in his own nature, 
eternal and unchangeable wisdom, in the highest conceivable sense; 
that is, he possesses the attribute of universal, illimitable, perfect, and 
infinite wisdom. 

Nor can this wisdom be understood as in any sense progressive. It 
is not arrived at by successive mental exercises or efforts, as is the case 
with finite beings. His wisdom admits of no increase amid the cycles 
of duration, but exists, as an element of his essence, from eternity. At 
one intuitive glance, so to speak, it surveys all things, whether possible 
or actual, in all their qualities, relations, forces, and issues. Nor is it 
originated or improved by any concatenated process of ratiocination, or 
comparing of external things; but it is all of himself—the outbirth of 
his own infinite fullness. It is not to be contemplated as the product 
of any thing exterior to God, or as the exercise of a divine faculty, 
but it is the spontaneous outflowing of the divine perfections—it is God 
himself, shining forth in his own eternal and changeless attributes. 

The wisdom of God is seen in all his works and ways; and volumes 
might be written upon the subject, without a survey of half the field 
of interest it presents; but we deem it needless to enlarge. 

If we look at creation around us, we see everywhere, not only the 
evidence of infinite skill and wisdom in the structure of things and in 
the adjustment of their parts and properties, but a wise adaptation of 
appropriate means to the most benevolent ends. With what consum- 
mate skill have the natural forces been arranged and combined for the 
production of the vegetable supplies of earth, and how admirably are 
they adapted to the wants of man and beast! The properties of the 


28 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i Bo 


soils, the aptitudes of seeds, the rain and the sunshine of heaven, and 
the recurrence of the seasons, all combine to clothe the earth with ver- 
dure, and to fill the barns with-plenty. 

But the richest display of the divine wisdom is seen in redemption’s 
w ndr wus scheme, 


“ Here the whole Deity is known, 
Nor dares a creature guess, 
Which of the glories brighter shone, 
The justice or the grace.” 


The gospel is the greatest manifestation of the divine wisdom ever 
witnessed by men or angels. This is that sublime “mystery” which St. 
Paul affirms was “made known” unto him “by revelation.” “Which 
in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men.” “That the 
Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of 
his promise in Christ by the gospel.” “And to make all men see what 
is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world 
hath been hid in God.” Here is the “manifold wisdom of God”—the 
brightest illustration of this resplendent attribute ever unfolded to the 
view of ‘the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” Well 
might the apostle exclaim, after such a contemplation of the divine 
wisdom, “Unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus, throughout 
all ages, world without end!” 

VI. OmniporENcr. Perhaps no attribute of God is more gloriously 
exhibited in the Scriptures than this. That the divine power is infinite, 
is clearly seen in the first chapter of Genesis, where the stupendous 
work of creation is presented. To create something out of nothing, is a 
work which none but Omnipotence can perform. How wonderful then 
the power of God, by which, at a word, he called into being, not only 
this earth with all it contains, but perhaps millions of worlds, and sys- 
tems of worlds, that now roll in their respective spheres throughout the 
immensity of space! 

In farther tracing the illustrations of this attribute, as contained in 
the Scriptures, we notice the following passages :—1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12: 
“Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the 
victory, and the majesty; for all that is in the heaven and in the earth 
is the; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head 
above all. Both riches and honor come of thee, and thou reignest over 
all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to 
make great, and to give strength unto all.” Job xxvi. 14: “But the 
thunder of his power who can understand?” Ps, Ixii. 11: “God hath 


Ch. ii.) THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 29 


spoken once; twice have I heard this; that power belongeth unto God.” 
Jer. x. 12, 13: “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath estab- 
lished the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by 
his discretion. When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of 
waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapors to ascend from the 
ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth 
the wind out of his treasures.” Hab. iii. 3-6: “God came from Teman, 
and the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the 
heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. And his brightness was 
as the light; he had horns coming out of his hand; and there was the 
hiding of his power. Before him went the pestilence, and burning coals 
went forth at his feet. He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, 
and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were 
scattered, the perpetual hills did bow; his ways are everlasting.” Gen 
xxxv. 11: “And God said unto him, I am God Almighty.” 

Thus we see how clearly the Scriptures exhibit the omnipotence of 
God. This, as well as all the other attributes, is possessed in the high- 
est possible perfection. And we understand hereby that God is able to 
do all things which can be effected by omnipotent power. But, at the 
same time, all the attributes harmonize, and infinite power can never be 
exercised so as to perform what implies a contradiction in itself, or what 
is inconsistent with the divine nature; but this implies no imperfection 
in this attribute, but rather exhibits its superiative excellency. 

VII. Omnrpresence. The declarations of Scripture, in proof and 
illustration of this attribute, are at once clear and sublime. Ps. cxxxix. 
7,10: “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from 
thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make 
my bed in hell, behold thou art there. If I take the wings of the 
morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall 
thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.” Prov. xv. 3: 
“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the 
good.” Jer. xxiii, 24: “Car any hide himself in secret places, that I 
shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? 
saith the Lord.” Isa. ]xvi.1: “Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my 
throne, and the earth is my footstool.” 2 Chron. vi. 18: “Behold, 
heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less 
this house that I have built.” Amos ix. 2,3: “Though they dig into 
hell, thence shall my hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, 
thence will I bring them down. And though they hide themselves in 
the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though 
they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I com 


80 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 


mand the serpent, and he shall bite them.” Acts xvii. 28: “For in 
him we live, and move, and have our being.” Eph. i. 23: “The fullness 
of him that filleth all in all.” 

The foregoing are sufficient to show that God is everywhere present 
at the same time. As one has expressed it, “His center is everywhere, 
and his circumference nowhere.” This attribute seems, in the very 
nature of things, to be essential to the divine character; for, without it, 
we do not see how the infinite power, wisdom, goodness, and other 
attributes, could be exercised; and perhaps it was their ignorance of 
the divine ubiquity which first led the heathen nations into the super- 
stitions of polytheism. How incomprehensible is this, as well as all the 
other attributes of God! We can be present at but one place at the 
same time; nor, so far as we can judge from reason and revelation, can 
any created intelligence occupy, at the same time, two separate and 
distinct positions in space. Fallen spirits, holy angels, and “the spirits 
of just men made perfect,” may pass with the velocity of thought from 
world to world; but we have no evidence that there is any but the one 
omnipresent Being. 

VIL. Immurapriiry. That God is possessed of this attribute, is 
taught in the following texts:—Mal. iii. 6: “For I am the Lord, I 
change not.” James i. 17: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is 
from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is 
no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” Ps. cii. 27: “But thou art 
the same, and thy years shall have no end.” Heb. i. 12: “But thou 
art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” 

By the unchangeableness of God, as thus taught, we are to under- 
stand that all his attributes continue invariable. What he is now, in 
his own essential nature, he ever has been, and ever will be. But this 
does not imply that he may not change his dispensations toward men. 
Indeed, the unchangeableness of God itself requires that his dealings 
with his creatures should so vary as to correspond with the condition 
of different nations and individuals, and of the same nation or indi- 
vidual at different times. Thus he may look with complacency upon 
the returning sinner, with whom he was offended during his rebellion, 
while the apostate, who once shared his smiles, is now the object of his 
holy displeasure. 

The immutability of God seems necessarily to result from the perfec- 
tion of his character. As all his attributes are infinite, it is clear that 
they cannot he increased in perfection. They could not suffer diminu- 
tion or deterioration without the destruction of his Godhead; conse 
quently, they must forever continue the same. 


Ch. ii.) THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 8) 


IX. Hotness. This attribute is otherwise termed rectitude, or right 
eousness. It is the basis of what is considered the moral character of 
God. The scriptures setting forth this perfection of the divine Being 
are numerous and explicit. Such are the following: “Thou art of purer 
eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look upon iniquity.” Hab. i, 
13. “Yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.” Job xxv. 5. “Be 
ye holy, for I am holy.” 1 Pet. i. 16. “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord 
of hosts.” Isa, vi. 3. “And they rest not day and night, saying, 
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty.” Rev.iv. 8. “Unto thee will 
I sing with the harp, O thou Holy One of Israel.” Ps. Ixxi. 22. 

The infinite holiness of God implies the absolute exclusion of every 
conceivable principle of moral evil, and the possession, in an unlimited 
degree, of every conceivable principle of moral good. It implies the 
possession of an unchangeable will and nature, inclining him, in every 
conceivable case and at all times, to approve, love, and do, that which 
is right ; and to condemn, hate, and abstain from, that which is wrong. 
In other words, the nature, the will, and all the acts of God, invariably 
and freely conform to his own inimitable perfections. Absolute holi 
ness inheres in the divine nature, so that God can no more sanction, 
approve, or look upon, moral evil without abhorrence, than he can cease 
to be God. God can only will or approve what accords with his own 
perfections, with his infinite rectitude, and his unswerving righteous- 
ness. Hence it is manifest that the principles of moral rectitude are as 
eternal and immutable as the divine perfections. Indeed, the principles 
of holiness flow as naturally from the nature of God as the effect from 
the cause; or, more properly speaking, infinite holiness is God—it is 
the substratum of all his perfections, and the perfections of God are 
God. They cannot be taken from him, nor can they pertain to any 
created entity in the vast universe. 

X. Trurn. This attribute might be included as a subdivision under 
the head of holiness. Indeed, it is only one specific form in which holi- 
ness is manifested—one phase in which it may be viewed. As truth 
is a moral good, and falsehood a moral evil; and as holiness embraces 
all moral good, it necessarily follows that truth, in strictness of speech, 
is included in the essence of holiness. Indeed, all the divine attributes 
so perfectly harmonize, and some of them, like kindred drops, so flow 
into each other, that it is sometimes difficult, either in our forms of 
thought or of speech, to distinguish one from another. 

That God is possessed of the attribute of truth, appears from the 
following scriptures: God is said to be “abundant in goodness and 
truth.” Ex. xxxiv. 6. “The truth of the Lord endureth forever.” Ps 


$2 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. BLL 


exvil. 2. “God is not a man, that he should Jie; neither the son of man, 
that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not doit? or hath he 
spoken, and shall he not make it good?” Num. xxiii. 19. “In hope 
of eternal life, which God, that cannot Lie, promised before the world 
began.” Tit. i. 2. “That by two immutable things, in which it was 
impossible for God to lie.” Heb. vi. 18. “Yea, let God be true, but 
every mana liar.” Rom. iii. 4. “Thy word is true from the beginning.” 
Ps. cxix. 160. “A God of truth, and without iniquity ; just and right 
is he.” Deut. xxxii. 4. “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and 
truth.” Ps, xxv. 10. “Thy truth reacheth unto the clouds.” Ps, eviii. 
4. “Which keepeth truth forever.” Ps. exlvi. 6. 

The truth of God may be viewed either in the sense of veracity or of 
Juithfulness. In either acceptation, God is a God of truth, in the most 
absolute sense. He can no more deceive his creatures by uttering false- 
hood, than he can be deceived himself. Nor can he fail in the fulfill- 
ment of his promises. It is true, many of his promises are conditional ; 
and sometimes, when these conditions are not expressed, they are 
implied. But in every case the promises of God are, “Yea and amen.” 
If we perform the condition, the promise is sure. “Heaven and earth 
shall pass away,” saith our Lord, “but my words shall not pass 
away.” 

The purity of the true religion is gloriously exhibited in contrast with 
the lying vanities of paganism. While, in heathen systems of worship, 
we see nothing but vanity, deception, and falsehood, we find revealed in 
the Bible a God whose nature is truth, and a system of worship com- 
posed of truth, without any mixture of falsehood or error. This attri- 
bute harmonizes with all the others; for as God is pure, and just, and 
good, he can never deceive his creatures, or permit his word to fail. 

XI. Justice. That God possesses this attribute in absolute perfec- 
tion, is seen from the following passages: Ps, Ixxxix. 14: “Justice and 
judgment are the habitation of thy throne.” Isa. xly. 21: “There is 
no God else besides me, a just God, and a Saviour: there is none besides 
me.” Zeph, iii. 5: “The just Lord is in the midst thereof; he will not 
do iniquity.” Rom. iii. 26: “That he might be just, and the justifier 
of him which believeth in Jesus.” 

That God is just, appears from the entire history of the divine admin- 
istration, as presented in the Bible. Indeed, the preservation of the 
principles of jastice untarnished, is essential to the maintenance of the 
divine government over the intelligent universe. And should short- 
sighted mortals, in any instance, fancy an apparent failure in the pres- 
ervation of the divine justice in this world, we may rest assured that 


Ch. fi) THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 88 


the future judgment “will bring to light the hidden things of darkness,” 
and fully “justify the ways of God to men.” 

Justice, like truth, is only one form in which the holiness of God is 
manifested. The divine justic. may be viewed as either legislative or 
judicial. 

Legislative justice prescribes what is right, and prohibits what is 
wrong; and defines the reward or punishment connected with the onc 
or the other. 

Judicial justice relates to the application of law to human conduct. 
It may be remunerative—conferring a proper reward upon the obedient ; 
or vindictive—inflicting due punishment upon the disobedient. 

It should be remembered, however, that the reward which God. con- 
fers on the righteous, is not of debt, but of grace. We are to be 
rewarded, not for our works, but according to our works. In this sense 
the apostle says: “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and 
labor of love.” Heb. vi. 10. And our Lord says: “ My reward is with 
me to give every man according as his work shall be.” Rev. xxii. 12. 

In all the divine administration, the principles of strict justice are 
maintained. It was well spoken by Elihu: “ For the work of a man 
shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his 
ways: yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty 
pervert judgment.” Job xxxiv. 11, 12. 

The justice of God is administered with impartiality. It is true, in 
the distribution of temporal mercies, there is often great inequality in 
the allotments of Divine Providence, both as to nations and individu- 
als. But a complete adjustment on this subject is realized by the appli- 
cation of the Saviour’s maxim: “ Unto whomsoever much is given, of 
him shall be much required.” Luke xii. 48. With God, “there is no 
respect of persons.” Long ago it was said: “Shall not the Judge of 
all the earth do right?” And the awards of the great day shall ren- 
der a satisfactory response to the interrogatory, in the face of assembled 
worlds. 

XII. Goopyess. This attribute, as contradistinguished from holi- 
ness, or universal rectitude, signifies benevolence. It is an internal, fixed 
principle of good-will or kindness, delighting in the diffusion of happi- 
ness to all intelligent or sentient existences, so far as possible, consist- 
ently with the divine perfections. Benevolence, love, mercy, and long- 
suffering, or forbearance, are all included in the attribute of goodness, 
either as different modes of expressing the same thing, or as different 
forms in which the principle is exhibited. 

This attribute is taught in the following scriptures: “O give thanks 

3 


B4 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. BL 


anto the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth forever.” Ps. 
evi. 1. “O taste and see that the Lord is good.” Ps. xxxiv. 8. “None 
is good, save one, that is God.” Luke xviii. 19. “And the Lord passed 
by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, mereiful and 
gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping 
mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and transgression, and sin, and 
that will by no means clear the guilty.” Ex. xxxiv. 6,7. “For how 
@reat is his goodness.” Zech. ix. 17. The Lord is called “the God of 
love.” 2 Cor. xiii. 11. And. St John declares that “God is love.” 1 
John iv. 8. 

This is one of the most interesting and endearing perfections of God. 
It constitutes the very essence of the Deity. All the other attributes, 
properly understood, harmonize with love. To this principle neither 
truth, justice, nor holiness can be opposed. ; 

That God delights in the happiness of his creatures, is not only 
taught with great emphasis and fullness in Scripture, but is abundantly 
manifest in his works and providence. In all nature we behold the 
clearest proof of the benevolent designs of its Author. Although evil, 
both natural and moral, exists in the world, we can see no evidence 
that, in a single instance, it has been Drea by the original contriv- 
ance of the Creator. 

If God be good, and delighteth in the happiness of his creatures, how 
vame pain and death into the world? This question has often been 
urged, and its solution has long puzzled the minds and taxed the 
ingenuity of philosophers and divines. Perhaps a better reply, in 
so small a compass, is nowhere to be found than that furnished by Mr. 
Wesley : 

“Why is there sin in the world? Because man was created in the 
image of God; because he is not mere matter, a clod of earth, a lump 
of clay, without sense or understanding, but a spirit like his Creator ; 
a being endued not only with sense and understanding, but also with a 
will exerting itself in various affections. To crown all the rest, he was 
endued with liberty, a power of directing his own affections and actions, 
a capacity of determining himself, or of choosing good and evil. In- 
deed, had not man been endued with this, all the rest would have been 
of no use. Had he not been a free as well as an intelligent being, his 
understanding would have been as incapable of holiness, or any “kind 
of virtue, as a tree or a block of marble. And having this power—a 
power of choosing good and evil—he chose the latter—he chose evil. 
Thus ‘sin entered into the world’ ” (Wesley’s Sermons.) 

Rut while we contemplate man as a sinner, ruined by the fall, the 


Sn. 11.) THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD 35 


attribute of infinite love is the one which, of all the divine perfectiona, 
addresses itself to our nature the most affectingly, the most tenderly. 
The amazing love of God in redemption, is the strongest appeal that 
ean reach the human soul. When this has lost its force, the last trace 
of the divine image has been effaced, and all is lost—utter ruin 
eisues. 

The mercy of God is the outgoing of his goodness and love, in mani 
festations of pity and compassion for such as are in distress or affliction, 
or are exposed to misery or ruin. Goodness and Love look down upon 
the fallen race, and desire their happiness; Wisdom devises the rem- 
edy; Pity lets fall her tear of sympathy; and Mercy comes to the 
rescue. But while the guilty turn with indifference or scorn from all 
the offers of grace tendered by the hand of Mercy, Long-suffering waits 
with enduring patience, reiterates the pleadings of Mercy, crying, “ Why 
will ye die?” till Goodness, and Love, and Pity, and Mercy, and Long- 
suffering, having all made their appeals only to be rejected and set at 
naught, join with Justice, and Holiness, and every perfection of God, in 
pronouncing upon the incorrigible their fearful and irrevocable doom. 

Thus we have presented a faint outline of some of the principal 
attributes of God, as revealed in his word. But after our utmost 
recearch, how imperfect is our knowledge of the great Supreme! We 
cau but exclaim: “Lo! these are parts of his ways; but how little o 
pocticn is heard of him? but the thunder of his power who can undér- 
stead?” 


Qvestion 1. Can we comprehend the | 12. 


2. 


10, 


1] 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


(Pi BL 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER II. 


nature of God? 

Is it our duty to endeavor to gain a 
knowledge of the divine charac- 
ter? 

To what extent should we carry our 
efforts ? 


. How have the attributes of God 


been classed ? 


. Is this classification important? 
. Are any of the divine attributes op- 


posed to each other? 


. Are we assured that we have some 


knowledge of all the attributes of 
God? 


. What attributes of God are por- 


trayed in the Scriptures? 


. What is the import, and what are 


the proofs, of the attribute of 
unity? 

Eternity ? 

What scriptures establish the divine 
omniscience ? 


13. 


14. 


15. 


16. 


17. 
18, 
19. 
20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 


24. 


Does God absolutely and certainly 
foreknow all things? 

In what sense is it proper to say that 
with God there is one eternal now! 

Does the foreknowledge of God ren 
der future events necessary, which, 
if not foreknown, would be con- 
tingent ? 

How is the attribute of wisdom de- 
fined, and how is it proved? 

What is the import, and what are 
the proofs, of the attribute of om. 
nipotence ? 

Omnipresence ? 

Immutability ? 

Holiness? 

Truth? 

Justice? 

Goodness ? 

Can we thoroughly comprehend 
these attributes? 

What attribute is said most fully i» 
define the divine character? 


Ch. iii.) THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. #7 


CHAPTER III. 


THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 


Tae term Christ is from the Greek Xpotéc, which means anointed, 
coming from the verb ypiw, to anoint. It is an appellation now uni- 
versally appropriated to Jesu of Nazareth, the Saviour of the world, 
and author of the Christian religion. 

That this illustrious personage was possessed of proper humanity, 
having assumed our nature, sin only excepted, is a position clearly set 
forth in the Scriptures, and very generally admitted. In proof of this 
doctrine, we might appeal to the entire personal history of our Saviour, 
as well as to those numerous passages of Scripture in which he is styled 
man, or the Son of man. 

But the object of this chapter is to treat especially of the divinity 
of Christ, which relates to another nature, entirely distinct from the 
humanity. By the divinity of Christ we here mean the Godhead, in the 
proper and supreme sense of the term. 

With regard to the character of Christ, three distinct views have been 
adopted, known as the Socinian, the Arian, and the Trinitarian theo- 
ries, Socinus taught that the Saviour commenced his existence when 
he was born of the Virgin, and consequently that he was a mere man, 
though possessed of extraordinary sanctity and excellence. Arius 
taught that he was the first and the most exalted being God ever pro- 
duced, but still, that he was created. Whereas, Trinitarians hold that 
he possesses two distinct natures—the hwmanity, which was born of the 
Virgin, and crucified on the cross, and the divinity, which was united 
with the humanity, and was very and eternal God, in essence equal and 
one with the Father. 

The plain question which we will now consider is this: Js Jesus 
Christ truly and properly God? The affirmative of the question we 
believe to be the Scripture truth, and we proceed to establish it by an 
appeal to the holy oracles. 

The scriptural arguments on this subject we deduce from four differ- 
ent sources, viz., I. The titles; II. The attributes; III. The works; and 
IV. The honors, ascribed to Christ. To each of these we will attend in 
the order here presented. 


88 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. 1. 


I. Tirtes or Curist. These, we think, as presented in the Scrip- 
tures, are so exalted that they can properly apply to none but God, 
and consequently they demonstrate the proper Deity of Christ. 

1. Jehovah.—If it can be shown that this sacred and exalted name is 
in the Scriptures applied to Christ, it will amount to an irresistible 
proof of his real and proper divinity. First, let us notice the superior 
dignity of the title. As we see, from the third chapter of Exodus, this 
was the peculiar and appropriate name of God, which was first revealed 
unto Moses from the bush, and is there rendered in our version, “I Am 
that I Am.” Josephus informs us that this name was so peculiarly 
sacred and holy, that his religion did not permit him to pronounce it. 
This word Jehovah has ever been considered by the Jews as the high- 
est appellation of the supreme God; and God himself claims it as 
his own peculiar name. We shall now see that it is applied to Christ. 
In Isa. x]. 8, we read as follows: “The voice of him that crieth in 
the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the 
desert a highway for our God.” Here, in the original, is found the 
word Jehovah, Now let us turn to Matt. iii. 3, and we find this pas- 
sage quoted, and applied to Jesus Christ: “For this is he that was 
spoken of by the Prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” 

Again, in 1 Cor. x. 9, we read: “ Neither let us tempt Christ, as some 
of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.” Here we have 
the testimony of the apostle that the person tempted by the fathers in 
the wilderness was Christ; but let us turn to the passage from which 
he quotes, and we shall see that he is there called Jehovah. Deut. vi. 
16: “Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God, as ye tempted him in 
Massah.” Here the original is, Jehovah your God. Thus the same 
person styled Jehovah by Moses, is by St. Paul explicitly said to be 
Christ. 

Various other instances might be specified, in which the Christ of the 
New Testament is identified with the Jehovah of the Old T estament ; 
but these are so clear that we need not multiply quotations. Now if, 
as we have seen, Jehovah, which means the self-existent God, the high- 
est title the Almighty ever claimed, is applied to Christ, will it not fol- 
low that Christ is God? 

2. Lord of glory.—1 Cor. ii. 8: “Which none of the princes of this 
world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the 
Lord of glory.” Here we see that Jesus Christ is styled the Lord of 
glory; but that appellation is proper to none but God ; therefore Jesus 
Christ must be God, 


Oh. in. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 39 


8. God.—Jesus Christ in the Scriptures is styled God. John i. 1: 
“Tn the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God.” Here Jesus Christ is called God; but that term is 
applicable to none but God; therefore Jesus Christ must be God. 
Again, Ps. xlv. 6, 7: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; the 
scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter; thou lovest righteousness, 
and hatest wickedness; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with 
the oil of gladnes. above thy fellows.” Here, in the original, is found 
the word Elohim, or God; but now turn to Heb. i. 8, and we see this 
passage quoted, and applied to Christ, thus: “But unto the Son he 
saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteous- 
ness is the scepter of thy kingdom,” ete. 

Other passages, equally forcible, might be adduced, but these are 
sufficient to show that Jesus Christ is in the Scriptures called God ; but 
this term can be applied to none but God; therefore Jesus Christ must 
be God. 

Unitarians, to evade the force of this argument, which they cannot 
but feel to be conclusive, have, most unfortunately for their cause, 
attempted a change in the translation, so as to make it read, “God is 
thy throne forever and ever.” This translation, instead of calling the 
Son God, or Elohim, is made to say that God, or Elohim, is the throne 
of the Son. Hence it would follow that the Son must be superior to 
God, or Elohim, since he who sits upon the throne is superior to the 
throne itself. Thus, to avoid acknowledging the Deity of Christ, men 
have been rashly led even to undeify the Father, and hurl their artil- 
lery against the eternal throne. 

4. God with us.—This title is in Scripture applied to Christ. Matt. 
1.23: “And they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted 
is, God with us.” Here Jesus Christ is called “God with us ;” but that 
appellation is proper to none but God; therefore Jesus Christ must be God. 

5. God over all—In Rom. ix. 5, we read: “ Whose are the fathers, 
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God 
blessed forever.” Here our Saviour is styled “God over all;” conse- 
quently he must be the supreme God, for none can be greater than that 
God who is “ over all.” 

6. God manifest in the flesh—The same Being who was manifested in 
tLe flesh, or became incarnate, is called God. 1 Tim. iii. 16: “Great 
is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh,” ete. And in 
Acts xx. 28, we read: “Feed the Church of God, which he hath pur- 
chased with his own blood.” These passages show that Jesus Christ. 
the incarnate Word, was also God. 


40 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B. 1. 


7. True God.—This appellation is in the Scriptures given to Christ. 
1 John v. 20: “And we are in him that is true, even in his Son, Jesus 
Christ; this is the true God, and eternal life.” John xvii. 3: “And 
this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, 
and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” From these passages we 
learn that there is but “one true God,” and that Jesus Christ is that 
true God. 

8. Great God.—In Tit. ii. 18, we read: “Looking for that blessed 
hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour 
Jesus Christ.” Here, Jesus Christ is styled the “great God;” conse- 
quently he must be very and eternal God. 

9. Mighty God.—In Isa. ix. 6, we read: “For unto us a child is born, 
unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder ; 
and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, 
The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Here the “son given,” 
and the “child born,” which is Christ, is called “The Mighty God ;” 
consequently Christ is very and eternal God. 

Thus have we clearly seen from the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is 
designated by the following titles: Jehovah, Lord of glory, God, God 
with us, God over all, God manifest in the flesh, true God, great God, and 
mighty God. If this be true, then it will follow that if there were any 
other God besides Jesus Christ, the titles of Christ could not apply to 
that other God; consequently he could neither be Jehovah, the Lord of 
glory, God, God with us, God manifest in the flesh, the true God, the great 
God, nor the mighty God ; which is the same as to say he could not be 
God at all. Therefore we conclude, from the titles ascribed to Christ, 
that he is truly and properly very and eternal God. 

But, strange as it may appear, all this weight of argument, which we 
conceive to be nothing short of demonstration, is attempted to be set 
aside by the plea that “men, or created intelligences, are sometimes 
called gods in the Scriptures.” To which we reply, that in all places 
where the term god is applied to created beings, it is in an obviously 
inferior, accommodated, or figurative sense; and this is plainly seen in 
the context. For example, in the seventh chapter and first verse of 
Exodus, where God says to Moses, “See, I have made thee a god to 
Pharaoh ; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” The figura- 
tive sense in which the term: god is used, is so obvious from the con- 
text, that no one can be misled thereby. But in all the titles which we 
have seen applied to Christ, as clearly demonstrating his proper divin- 
ity, there is no inferior or figurative sense to be gathered from the con- 
text; but, on the contrary, the terms are used in their proper sense, 


Oh. iii.) THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. ay 


with their fullest import, with nothing in the context to authorize a 
nigurative or restricted acceptation. Hence the objection must fall to 
the ground; and we shall still be compelled to admit that the titles 
applied to Christ, unless inspiration is designed to mislead, do most 
clearly and conclusively demonstrate his real and proper divinity. 

II. Arrrreures. In the second place, the attributes ascribed to 
Christ in the Scriptures prove that he is God. 

1, Eternity—In Isa. ix. 6, Christ is called “The Everlasting Father ;” 
or, as critics generally render it, “ Father of the everlasting age;” or, 
“Father of eternity.” Either rendering will sufficiently establish the 
eternity of Christ. John viii. 58: “Before Abraham was, I am.” 
Again, Rev. i. 17: “And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead; 
and he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I an 
the first and the last.” And in Rev. xxii. 13, we read: “I am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” In Rev. 
i. 8, we read: “Tam Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, 
saith the Lord, which 7s, and which was, and which is to come, the 
Almighty.” And immediately after John heard these words, he 
“turned to see the voice that spake with” him, and saw “one like 
unto the Son of man.” Hence it is clear that all these words were 
uttered by our Saviour, and they evidently imply the eternity of his 
nature. But none but God can be eternal; therefore Christ must be 
God. 

2. Immutability—This attribute is ascribed to Christ. In Heb. i. 12, 
we read in reference to Christ: “ But thou art the same, and thy years 
shall not fail.’ Heb. xiii. 8: “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and 
to-day, and forever.” In these passages, the immutability of Christ. is 
clearly expressed. But none but, God can be immutable; therefore 
Jesus Christ must be God. 

3. Omnipresence—In the Scriptures, this attribute is applied to 
Christ. Matt. xxviii. 20: “Teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto 
the end of the world.” It is not possible for this promise to be fulfilled, 
unless Christ be omnipresent. Matt. xviii. 20: “For where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am J in the midst of 
them,” John iii, 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but 
he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in 
heaven.” | These texts clearly teach the omnipresence of Christ; conse- 
quently he must be God. 

4. Omnipotence.—This attribute is in the Scriptures ascribed to 
Christ. Matt. xxviii. 18: “And Jesus came and spake unto them, 


42 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.1. 


saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” And in 
Rev. i. 8, Jesus Christ is called, “The Almighty.” Hence the attribute 
of omnipotence belongs to him; therefore he must be God. 

5. Omniscience.—This attribute is ascribed to Christ in the following 
passages :—1 Cor. i. 24: “ But unto them which are called, both Jews 
and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” Col. 
ii. 2, 8: “Of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and 
knowledge.’ John xvi. 30: “Now we are sure that thou knowest all 
things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we 
believe that thou camest forth from God.” John xxi. 17: “ Lord, thou 
knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee.” John ii. 24, 25: 
“But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all 
men, and needed not that auy should testify of man; for he knew 
what was in man.” 

The foregoing clearly testify that Christ is omniscient. But none 
but God ean be omniscient; therefore Christ must be God. 

From what has been said, it clearly follows, according to the Scrip- 
tures, that Christ is eternal, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and 
omniscient. Now, it is impossible that any but the Supreme God should 
be possessed of these perfections; therefore the conclusion is irresistible 
that Jesus Christ is the supreme and eternal God. 

That the above argument from the attributes of Christ may be seen 
in its full force, it is only necessary to reflect that they are the highest 
perfections which can possibly pertain to Deity, and without which he 
would instantly cease to be God. In fact, they enter into the very defi- 
nition of the character of God; so much so, that no being without them 
can be God; and any being possessing them must be God. 

Those who deny the proper divinity of Christ, have admitted that 
these attributes are ascribed to him, but allege that “he only possesses 
them by delegation from the Father.” To which we reply that the 
hypothesis is self-contradictory and absurd. As these attributes are all 
infinite, if delegated at all, they must be entirely delegated. Hence, 
if the Father delegated infinite perfection to the Son, he could not have 
still possessed it himself; for no part of that which is entirely given to 
another can be left. Hence it would follow that the Father could no 
ionger he God. Indeed, the whole scheme of a delegated God, in the 
proper sense of that term, is absurd in itself; for there can be but one 
being possessed of infinite perfections; and these, in their very nature, 
are not susceptible of transfer. 

II, Tue works ascribed to Christ in the Holy Scriptures, are such 
as properly belong to none but God, and can be performed by none but 


CL. iii.) THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 43 


the Great Supreme; consequently they clearly prove that Jesus Christ 
is very and eternal God. 

1. Creation, in the proper sense of the word, is ascribed to Christ ; 
but this is a work which none can perform except the great First Cause 
of all things, who is universally understood to be God; therefore Christ 
must be God. That Christ is the Creator of all things, is seen from 
the following passages:—John i. 1-3, 14: “In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same 
was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and 
without him was not any thing made that was made.” “And the Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” etc. 

Here we may observe that the same Word, or Logos, that was “ made 
flesh,” made all things; consequently, if he was a creature, he made 
himself, which would imply an absurdity. Again, in Col. i. 15-17, we 
read: “ Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every 
creature; for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that 
are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or domin- 
ions, or principalities, or powers ; all things were created by him, and for 
him ; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Upon 
this passage we may remark, that if, by the eternal God, we understand 
that being who made all things, then Jesus Christ is the eternal God, 
for “by him were all things created.” Again: if, by the eternal God, 
we understand that being who existed prior to all other beings, then 
Jesus Christ is the eternal God; for “he is before all things.” Again 
if, by the eternal God, we understand that being who sustains all things 
in being, then Jesus Christ is the eternal God; for “by him all things 
consist.” Once more: if, by the eternal God, we understand that being 
for whom all things were made, then Jesus Christ is the eternal God ; 
for “all things were made by him, and for him.” 

From the passages above quoted, it is plain as language can make 
it, that the work of creation is ascribed to Jesus Christ. In the first 
chapter of Genesis, we read: “In the beginning God created the heaven 
and the earth.” From the similarity with which the first chapter 
of John commences, we are well convinced that the apostle had his 
mind placed on the record of Moses in the first of Genesis, and referred 
to the same beginning and the same creation. Hence the peculiar 
force of the argument. The same creation spoken of by Moses * 
the first of Genesis, and ascribed to God, is spoken of by the apostles 
in the first of John and the first of Colossians, and ascribed to Christ. 

The whole power of this argument some have, however, endeavored 
to evade, by saying that “ Christ performed the work of creation merely 


44 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. 1. 


as a delegatew being, exercising delegated powers ;” but this is preposter- 
ous, because it has nothing in the text to sustain it. Nay, it flatly con- 
tradicts the inspired record; for it is said Christ created all things 
“for himself;” whereas, a delertien being acts, not “for himself,’ but 
for him by whom he is aleguae Thus it is clear that the ascrip- 
tion of the work of creation to Christ establishes his real and proper 
divinity. 

2. Preservation is properly a work of the Supreme God, but that this 
is attributed to Christ in the Scriptures, is seen from the quotation 
already made from Col. i. 17: “By him all things consist.” In Heb. 
i. 3, we read: “ Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express 
image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, 
when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand 
of the Majesty on high.” Here we see that the great work of preserv- 
ing or upholding the universe is directly ascribed to Christ, and that 
without any intimation that he was exercising only a delegated power; 
consequently, if preservation be a work proper to none but the Supreme 
(Zod, Jesus Christ must be that being. 

3. Pardon, or the forgiveness of sins, is ascribed to Christ. In Matt. 
ix. 6, we read: “But that ye may know that the Son of man hath 
power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) 
Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.” Col. iii. 13: “Even 
as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” Acts v. 31: “Him hath God 
exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give 
repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” Thus we see that the 
forgiveness of sins, in his own name and by his own authority, is a 
work of Christ. But it is a work properly belonging to none but God ; 
therefore Christ must be God. 

4. Miracles—These were performed by Christ by his own proper 
authority. Prophets and apostles have wrought miracles, in the name 
and by the authority of God, who sent and empowered them; but they 
always confessed that it was not through their “own power or holi- 
ness,” but by the power of God, that the wonders were performed. But 
how different were the miracles of Christ! “The winds and the sea 
obeyed him.” The sick were healed, the dead were raised up at a word, 
and all nature was subject to his godlike control. Not only did he 
perform the most astonishing miracles himself, by his own authority, 
and at his own pleasure, but the miracles performed by the apostles 
were attributed to the potency of the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 
Thus it is clear that Christ performed miracles in a higher sense than 
ever prophet or apostle could claim to do, and in a sense proper to none 


ch. sii] THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 46 


but God; consequently the miracles of Christ attest his real and proper 
divinity. 

5. Judgment.—The judgment of the world, at the last day, is a work 
proper to be conducted by God alone; but this also is, in the Scriptures, 
attributed to Christ, as a work belonging to him. That Christ is to be 
the judge of the world, appears from the following passages:—Rom. 
xiv. 10, 11: “For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ 
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, 
and every tongue shall confess to God.” Phil. ii. 9-11: “ Wherefore 
God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is 
above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, 
of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
glory of God the Father.’ 2 Tim. iv. 1: “I charge thee therefore 
before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the guick and 
the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” John v. 22: “For the 
Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” 
Matt. xxv. 31, ete.: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory 
and all the holy angels with him,” etc. Thus it is expressly and repeat- 
edly declared that Jesus Christ is to be the judge in the great day of 
accounts. Now, if this be a work proper to God alone, and if it be 
expressly attributed to Jesus Christ in the Scriptures, it will irresistibly 
follow that Jesus Christ is God. 

That God is to be the judge in the great day of retribution, is abun- 
dantly evident from Scripture. In Heb. xii. 23, we read: “To the gen- 
eral assembly and church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, 
and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.” 
Rom. iii. 6: “ For then how shall God judge the world?” Eecl. xi. 9: “But 
know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.” 

Thus we discover how expressly it is set forth in Scripture, that it is 
the work of God to judge the world at the last day; and yet we have seen 
clearly that this work is ascribed to Christ; consequently Christ is God. 

Thus have we seen that the works of creation, preservation, the for- 
giveness of sins, the performance of miracles, and the judgment of the world, 
are all ascribed to Christ, and that they are works properly belonging 
to God alone; consequently they demonstrate the true and proper 
divinity of Christ. 

Arians and Socinians, generally, endeavor to evade the force of the 
argument derived from the works attributed to Christ, by asserting that 
“Christ exercises all this authority, and performs al] these stupendous 
works, merely as a delegated creature.” But this is an assumption, 


46 HLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.1. 


not only unsupported by Scripture, but, as already shown, in direct 
opposition to the inspired record. That it is also unreasonable and 
absurd, will be readily perceived, when we reflect for a moment on the 
nature of these powers, said to be delegated or imparted. For instance, 
take the first which we presented—creation. Now, to say that Jesus 
Christ produced the work of creation out of nothing, by the exercise of 
x delegated power, would necessarily imply that omnipotent or infinite 
power had been delegated to him; for no power short of that is ade 
quate to the work in question. But if that omnipotent or infinite power 
was delegated to Christ, then it necessarily follows either that there are 
two beings of infinite power, and consequently two Gods, or that the 
Father has ceased to be possessed of omnipotence himself, having trans- 
ferred this perfection to another, and, consequently, ceased to be God. 
Take either horn of the dilemma, and it may easily be seen that the 
notion of delegated creative power leads to manifest absurdity. 

IV. Honors. 1. The divine worship ascribed to Christ in the Serip- 
tures demonstrates his Supreme Godhead. In Matt. iv. 10, our Saviour 
says: “For it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him 
only shalt thou serve.” And throughout the whole history of the Bible, 
to pay divine homage or worship to any being except God, is idolatry, 
a crime of deepest dye. 

Now, if it can be shown that Jesus Christ is a proper object of wor- 
ship, or divine honors, it will necessarily follow that he is very and 
eternal God, That he is a proper object of divine worship, appears from 
the following passages :—Luke xxiv. 51, 52: “And it came to pass while 
he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. 
And they worshiped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” 
Acts 1, 24: “And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the 
hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen.” Acts 
vii. 59, 60: “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, 
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a 
loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said 
this, he fell asleep.” 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9: “For this thing I besought the 
Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My 
grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weaknex 
Most gladly, therefore, will I rather glory in mine infirmities, that thr 
power of Christ may rest upon me.” 2 Thess. ii. 16,17: “Now ow 
Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved 
us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through 
grace, comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and werk.” 
1 Cor. i. 2: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that 


Ch. iii.) THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 47 


are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every 
place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” 
Heb. i. 6: “And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the 
world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.” Rev. v. 
11-13: “And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round 
avout the throne, and the beasts, and the elders; and the number of 
them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 
saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive 
power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and 
blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, 
and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, 
heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him 
that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.” 

Thus do we see that prayer, praise, homage, devotion, and the highest 
species of worship, such as can be rendered to no created intelligence 
without the grossest idolatry, are claimed by, and ascribed to, our 
blessed Saviour; consequently, he must be the Supreme God. The 
Bible is expressly designed to destroy every species of idolatry; but if 
Jesus Christ be not the Supreme Jehovah, the holy volume itself is the 
best constructed system that could have been devised for the successful 
encouragement and promotion of idolatry in its grossest form. 

2. Godhead.—The honors of the Supreme Godhead are emphatically 
ascribed to Christ. In Heb. i. 3, we read: “Who being the brightness 
of his glory, and the express image of his person.” This passage conclu- 
sively identifies the natures of Christ and of the Father. ‘To see the 
force of the passage, it is only necessary to reflect that the glory of the 
Father, in the absolute and supreme sense of the term, means his 
supreme perfections. Now, observe, it is not said that Christ reflects 
the glory of the Father, but that he is that glory. But lest it might 
still be supposed that he is only the glory of the Father in an inferior 
or delegated sense, it is said he is “the brightness of his glory;” which 
implies that he is the glory of the Father in the superlative sense. In 
Col. i. 15, we read: “ Who is the image of the invisible God.” And in 
the 19th verse: “For it pleased the Father that in him should all full- 
ness dwell.’ Again, in Col. ii. 9, we read: “For in him dwelleth all the 
fullness of the Godhead bodily.” 

Observe here, first, Christ is said to be “the image of the invisible 
God.” This must refer to his divine perfections; and Christ cannot be 
the image of them unless he possesses them entire. Again: it is here 
said that in Christ “all fullness” dwells. This can have no meaning, 
unless it implies the infinite perfections of Jehovah. But lest therv 


48 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1. B.1. 


might still be room for cavil, it is said, in the third place, that “in him 
dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Language could not 
be framed more strongly to express supreme divinity. 

3. Equality with the Father is an honor claimed by, and attributed to, 
Christ. Here we may observe that, as God the Father is a being of 
infinite perfections, no finite being can be equal with him; none can be 
equal with him without possessing an identity of nature, so as to con- 
stitute the same infinite and undivided essence. That this equality is 
ascribed to Christ, is seen in the following scriptures :—Phil. ii. 6: “Who, 
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” 
John v. 18: “Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because 
he not only had broken the Sabbath. but said also that God was his 
Father, making himself equal with God.” In verse 23d: “That all men 
should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” John x. 33: “The 
Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for 
blasphemy, and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” 
John xiv. 9: “Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with 
you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me 
hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?” 
Here we see the equality of Christ with the Father clearly presented. 
He claimed it himself. He “thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God.” The Jews understood him to claim this equality in an absolute 
sense; for they said, “Thou makest thyself God.” If they misunder- 
stood him in this claim, he must have designed to deceive them; for he 
does not correct the error. 

Again, he claims equal honors with the Father. If Jesus Christ be 
not God, surely this would be gross blasphemy, and the sanction of 
palpable idolatry! : 

Thus have we seen that the honors of divine worship, Supreme God- 
head, and equality with the Father, are, in Scripture, plainly ascribed to 
Christ; consequently he must be very and eternal God. 

In conclusion, we would say, that the Divinity of Christ is a doctrine, 
not only expressly and abundantly taught in the Bible, but perfectly 
consistent with the general scheme of salvation presented in the gospel. 
Christ is there exhibited as the great atoning sacrifice for sin, and 
Redeemer of the world. That he may be an adequate Mediator between 
God and man, it seems essential that he possess both natures. Were 
he a mere creature, all the service in his power to render would belong 
to God, as a matter of debt on his own account; consequently he could 
have no merit to spare, as an atonement for mankind. 

Finally, he is presented as the Saviour of the world; as the ground 


Uh. iii.) THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 19 


and foundation of the sinner’s hope and confidence, in the hour of aftlice- 
tion, death, and judgment. How essential does it appear that the arm 
on which we lean for the salvation of our immortal souls should be 
strong to deliver, and mighty to save! Well might we tremble, if our 
eternal hopes were all based upon a finite creature! But, thanks be to 
God, he in whom we trust, as our refuge and Redeemer, possesses infinite 
perfe tions. He is the Holy One of Israel, the unoriginated and eternal 
Jehovah. He possesses those titles and attributes, performs those works 
and receives those honors, which properly can belong to none but the 
Great Supreme. To him be glory and dominion forever! Amen. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER III. 


Question 1. What is the import of the | 23. Omnipotent? 


word Christ? -| 24. Omniscient? 
2. How may the real and proper hu- | 25. How do these attr*butes prove the 
manity of Christ be proved? Deity of Carist? 
3. What is the Socinian theory of | 26. How is the attempt made to evade 
Christ? the force of the argument? and 
4. The Arian? what is the reply? 
6. The Trinitarian ? 27. What exalted works are ascribed to 
6. From what four sources are proofs of Christ? 
Christ’s real divinity deduced ? 28. What is the evidence that creation 
7. What exalted titles are ascribed to is ascribed to him? 
Christ? 29, Preservation ? 
8. What is the proof that he is styled | 30. Pardon? 
Jehovah? 31. Miracles? 
9. Lord of glory ? 32. Judgment? 
10. God? 33. How do these works prove the proper 
11. God with us? divinity of Christ? 
12. God over all? 34. How is the effort made to evade the 
13. God manifest in the flesh? force of the argument? and what 
14. True God? is the reply? 
15. Great God? 35. What are the exalted honors ascribed 
16. Mighty God? to Christ? 
17. How do these titles demonstrate his | 36. What is the evidence that divine 
proper divinity? worship is ascribed to him? and 
18. How is the attempt made to evade how does it demonstrate his proper 
the force of the argument? and divinity? 
what is the reply? 37. The Supreme Godhead? 
16. What attributes are mentioned as} 38, Equality with the Father? 
being ascribed to Christ? 39. Whence does it appear that the doc 
20. What is the proof that he is eternal ? trine of the Divinity of Christ ac- 
21. Immutable? cords with the gospel scheme of 
2, Omnipresent ? salvation? 


50 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. iP i. BL 


CHAPTER IV. 
fHE PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


Tue Holy Spirit is a term of so frequent occurrence in the sacred 
writings, and presents a theme of contemplation so intimately connected 
with the entire system of revealed truth, that a careful investigation of 
the subject must be of vital importance. 

The word rendered Spirit, in Hebrew, is ruach, and in Greek, pneuma, 
which in those languages signify, primarily, breath, or wind, from the 
verb signifying to breathe, or to blow. The etymology of the word, how-. 
ever, can afford us but little aid in the investigation of the subject of the 
Holy Spirit, as presented in the Bible. Here we must rely entirely 
upon the declarations of inspiration. 

In reference to what we are io understand by the Holy Spirit, as used 
in the Scriptures, there has existed from the early ages of Christianity, 
among professed Christians, a diversity of sentiment. Some have 
understood thereby merely an attribute, energy, or operation, of the 
Divine Being, denying to the Holy Ghost any personal existence what- 
ever; whilst others have contended both for the personal existence 
and the real Deity.of the Holy Spirit. The former has been the sen- 
timent generally of Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, ete. The latter 
has been the creed of the great body of orthodox Christians, from the 
apostolic day; and, as we shall endeavor to show, is the doctrine of 
the Bible. 

I. Personattry. In the first place, we shall endeavor to establish 
the personality of the Holy Spirit. By this we here mean that the 
Holy Spirit is a real being, possessing intelligence, and performing per- 
sonal actions; not, however, a being distinct and separate in essence 
from the Father. We understand the one undivided essence or being 
in the Godhead to exist in three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. We would prove the personality of the Holy Ghost, 1. 
By the appellations; 2. By the actions; 3. By the honors, ascribed to 
him. If these be such as can only be applicable to a real and personal 
existence, then the inference will be clear that the Holy Spirit is a real and 
personal being and not a mere abstract attribute, energy, or influence. 


Ch. iv.] PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 51 


1. The apped/ations used in the Scriptures, in reference to the Holy 
Spirit, are such as properly belong to none but a personal existence ; 
consequently they demonstrate the Holy Spirit’s personality. 

First, the masculine pronouns in the Greek New Testment are con- 
stantly applied to the Holy Spirit. In. John xiv. 26, we read: “ But 
the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in 
my name, he shall teach you all things.” Here the pronoun he, the 
masculine gender, is used, which would be highly improper if a real 
person be not referred to. Again, John xvi. 7, 8: “If I go not away, 
the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him 
unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and 
of righteousness, and of judgment.” Here the masculine pronoun is 
thrice used to denote the Holy Spirit. To designate the Holy Spirit 
thus constantly, in a plain, narrative style, by the pronoun “he,” if he 
be not a rea: person, would be contrary to the well-known rules and 
usages of language. 

We present one more quotation from the same chapter, verses 13-15: 
“ Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into 
all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall 
hear, that shall he speak; and he will shew you things to come He 
shall glorify me; for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it wuto you. 
All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore, said I, that he 
shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” The masculine per- 
sonal pronoun, the strongest appellation of personality in the language, 
is in this passage applied to the Holy Spirit no less than ten times. Is 
it possible for us to read this passage, and believe the Holy Spirit to be 
a mere abstract attribute, quality, energy, or influence, without so much 
as a personal existence? If this passage does not imply that he is a 
personal and intelligent being, we know of no language that could 
teach the idea. Again: he is over and over spoken of under the appel- 
lation of the “Comforter ;” and this term is used as a proper name (in 
Greek, the Paraclete) to designate an intelligent agent, and not an 
abstract quality or influence. Therefore we conclude, from the appel- 
lations used in the Scriptures to denote the Holy Spirit, that he is a 
personal existence. 

2. The actions attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures prove 
his personality. 

If these are seen to be personal in their character, such as can only 
pertain to a personal and real intelligence, then the argument for the 
personality of the Holy Spirit will be conclusive, In the passages 
already quoted, the following acts are attributed to the Holy Spirit, 


52 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. BL 


viz.: 1 To be sent. 2. To teach. 3. To come. 4. To reprove. & 
To guide. 6. To speak. 7. To hear. 8. To show. 9. To slorify. 
10. To-receive. 11. To take. Here are as many as eleven differ- 
ent personal acts only proper to a being of intelligence and personality ; 
consequently the Holy Spirit must be a personal being. 

Again, in Acts v. 82, we read: “And we are his witnesses of these 
things, and so is also the Holy Ghos:, whom God hath given to them 
that obey him.” John xv. 26: “But when the Comforter is come, 
whom [ will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, 
which proceedeth from the Father, he shail testify of me.” In these 
passages the Holy Spirit is said to bear witness, or testify—a_ personal 
act, which evinces his personality. In Acts xiii. 2, we read: “As they 
ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me 
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” In 
this verse there are no less than four proofs of the personality of the 
Holy Spirit. The personal pronoun is used twice—me and J—and the 
Holy Ghost is represented as having “said” or spoken to the apostles, 
and as having “called” Barnabas and Saul; and again, in the 
fourth verse, the Holy Ghost is said to have “sent forth” Barnabas 
and Saul. 

In 1 Cor. ii, 10, we read: “For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, 
the deep things of God.” Verse 13: “Which things also we speak, 
not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
Ghost teacheth.” In these passages, the Holy Spirit is represented as 
searching and teaching—personal acts, which prove his personality. 

In Rom. viii. 26, we read: “ Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our 
infirmities; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but 
the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot 
be uttered.” Now we might ask, If the Spirit be a mere abstract qual- 
ity or energy, how such an abstraction can intercede and groan? To 
what strange interpretation of Scripture shall we be driven, if we deny 
the personality of the Holy Spirit! 

3. ‘The honors ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures are 
such as properly appertain to none but a personal being, and conse- 
quently they prove his personality. 

(1) First, he is honored by an association with the Father and the Son, 
in the exalted record in heaven. 

1 John v. 7: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the 
Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.” Here it is evident that the 
Father and the Word are personal intelligences; and from the associa- 
tion of the Holy Spirit with them, we have equal reason to admit his 


h. iv.) DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 58 


personality ; otherwise we should have to suppose that the Father and 
the Word are both persons, but that the Holy Spirit is merely an 
energy or influence exerted by one or both of the other witnesses, and, 
as such, his record would be unmeaning and useless; for what could it 
add to the record of the Father and the Word? 

(2) Again: the honor of an association with the Father and_ the 
Son, in the sacred ordinance of baptism, is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 

Matt. xxviii. 19: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost.” Now, if the Holy Ghost be not a personal existence, how are 
we to understand this solemn dedication? We are dedicated, 1. To the 
person of the father; 2. To the person of the Son; and 3. To what? 
Not the person of the Spirit, but a mere attribute or energy, some- 
thing having no personal existence. How strangely absurd the idea! 
Thus we arrive at the conclusion, from the appellations, the actions, and 
the honors ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, that he is a real “ 
and personal intelligence. 

Il. Reat Divinity. We come now to consider the evidence in 
favor of the real and Supreme Deity of the Holy Spirit. The testi- 
mony on this point, like that in favor of the Deity of Christ, is derived 
from four different sources: the titles, attributes, works, and honors, 
ascribed to him in the Scriptures. 

1. The titles ascribed to the Holy Spirit establish his proper Deity. 

(1) He is called God. In Acts v. 3, 4, we read: “But Peter said, 
Ananias, why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and 
to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it 
not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? 
why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied 
unto men, but unto God.” Here, in the most express and full sense of 
the word, the Holy Ghost is called God. And if he be not God, the 
passage is made directly to teach a falsehood. 

(2) He is called “The Lord of hosts.” In Isa. vi. 5, 9, 10, we read: 
“Then said I, Woe is me! for Iam undone; because I am a man of 
unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; 
for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” “And he said, 
Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see 
ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and 
make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their 
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and 
convert, and be healed.” Now read Acts xxviii. 25-27: “And when 
they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had 


54 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. Bt 


spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet 
unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this peop!2, and say, Hearing ye shall 
hear, and shall not understand; and secing ye shall see, and not per- 
ceive. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are 
dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see 
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their 
hearts, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Here we 
discover that the person who appeared unto Isaiah, and who is by him 
called the Lord of hosts, is by St. Paul in his quotation expressly 
called the Holy Ghost. The Lord of hosts is one of the highest titles 
of the Deity; but if the Holy Ghost be the Lord of hosts, then it 
will follow that the Holy Ghost must be God. Thus it is clear that the 
Holy Ghost in the Scriptures is styled God, and the Lord of hosts. But 
these titles can properly be applied to none but the Supreme God ; 
therefore the Holy Ghost must be the Supreme God. 

2. The attributes ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures demon- 
strate his real divinity. 

(1) Eternity.—This attribute is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. In Heb. 
ix. 14, we read: “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who 
through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Here the 
Holy Spirit is called eternal. But that attribute can belong to none 
but God; consequently he is God. 

(2) Onuiscience is in the Scriptures ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 1 
Cor, i. 10: “ For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of 
God.” From this passage it is clear that the Holy Ghost is omnis- 
cient; consequently he must be very and eternal God. 

(3) Omnipotence is in the Scriptures ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 
In Rom. xv. 19, we read: “Through mighty signs and wonders, by the 
power of the Spirit of God.” That the power of the Spirit here spoken 
of was infinite, is evident from the miraculous energy which he is here 
said to have exercised. But as this mighty power belongs to God 
alone, therefore the Holy Spirit must be God. 

(4) Omnipresence is in the Scriptures ascribed to the Holy Spirit. 
Ps. exxxix. 7: ‘“ Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I 
flee froma thy presence?” 1 Cor, iii. 16: “Know ye not that ye are 
the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” Rom. 
vill. 9: “ But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the 
Spirit of God dwell in you.” These passages show that the Holy Spirit 
is omnipresent ; otherwise it would not be impossible to “flee from his 
presence,” nor could he dwell at the same time in the hearts of all his 


Ch. iv.] DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 55 


people in all places. But this attribute belongs to none but God; there- 
fore the Holy Spirit is God. 

3. The works attributed to the Holy Spirit in the Bible attest his 
proper divinity. 

(1) Creation is a work proper to God alone; but that this is ascribed 
to the Holy Spirit, appears from the following passages :—Job xxxiil. 
4: “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty 
hath given me life.” Job xxvi. 13: “ By his Spirit he hath garnished 
the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.” Here we see 
the work of creation ascribed to the Holy Spirit. But that is a work 
proper to God alone; therefore the Holy Spirit is God. 

(2) Preservation is a work ascribed to the Holy Spirit. In Ps. li. 12, 
we read: “Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation, and uphold me 
with thy free Spirit.” Here the work of preservation is ascribed to the 
Holy Spirit. But this is a work of God alone; therefore the Holy 
Spirit is God. 

(3) Inspiration of the prophets is a work proper to God alone; but 
this, in the Scriptures, is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. In 2 Pet. i. 21, 
we read: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; 
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 
Here we see that it was the Holy Ghost who inspired the prophets ; but 
in Heb. i. 1, we read: “God, who at sundry times and in divers man- 
ners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets.” Hence it 
was God who inspired the prophets; therefore the Holy Spirit must be 
God. 

We have now clearly seen from the Scriptures that the exalted works 
of creation, preservation, and the inspiration of the prophets, are all 
attributed to the Holy Spirit. But these are works again and again 
attributed to God, and which none but the infinite God can perform ; 
therefore the Holy Spirit must be very and eternal God. 

4, Honors.—We come next to consider the exalted honors ascribed to 
the Holy Spirit. If these are such as can properly belong to God alone. 
it will necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit is God. 

(1) Supreme majesty is ascribed to the Holy Spirit. In Matt. xii. 
31, we read: “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and _blas- 
phemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” Here we see that the Holy 
Ghost may be sinned against, and even so blasphemed that the sin can- 
not be forgiven. A character so revered and majestic can be no other 
than the Supreme God. 

(2) The Holy Spirit is honored by an association with the Father 


by ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B.1 


and the Son in baptism, as seen in Matt. xxviii. 19; and also in the 
divine benediction, as seen in 2 Cor. xiii. 14. These divine and 
exalted associations cannot be understood, in any sense consistent with 
the pure worship of God, without admitting the Supreme Deity of 
the Holy Spirit. God represents himself as “a jealous God, who 
will not give his honor to another.” But if the name of a mere 
creature, attribute, or influence, be connected with God the Father, 
in the most solemn forms of religious worship, how can we contem- 
plate the subject without seeing therein the most direct encouragement 
to idolatry. Surely the supreme majesty and exalted associations 
which we have just seen ascribed to the Holy Spirit, attest his proper 
divinity. 

Thus have we shown that the exalted titles, attributes, works, and 
honors, ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, demonstrate his 
real and Supreme Godhead. Whereas, if we deny the Godhead of the 
Holy Spirit, we are reduced to the glaring absurdity of saying that the 
highest titles, the supreme attributes, the most exalted works, and the 
most sacred honors of the Deity himself, are, in the Scriptures, most 
explicitly and repeatedly ascribed to a mere abstract attribute, emana- 
tion, energy, or influence, possessing no personal or conscious existence 
whatever; and that, too, in the volume expressly designed to destroy 
every species of idolatry. Surely it must be plain, that to deify ar 
influence, or any thing else besides the great and eternal Being, is a: 
really idolatry as to bow down before stocks and stones, or “ birds, and 
beasis, and creeping things.” But, according to the Bible, God is a 
Spirit,” and that Holy Spirit is God. 


PERSONALITY AND DIVINITY OF THE SPIRIT. 57 


Ch. iv.) 
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IV. 


Question 1. What is the Hebrew word | 10. The Lord of hosts? 


in the Old Testament, and the Greek 
word in the New Testament, ren- 
dered Spirit? and what do they 
mean ? 

. What has been the opinion of Arians, 
Socinians, etc., concerning the nature 
of the Holy Spirit? 

. What the view of Trinitarians, and 
the orthodox generally ? 

. What do we mean by the personality 
of the Holy Spirit? 


11. 


What divine attributes are ascribed 
to the Holy Spirit? 


. What is the evidence of his omnis 


cience? 


. Omnipotence? 
. Omnipresence ? 
. What exalted works are ascribed te 


the Holy Spirit? 


. What is the evidence that creatior 


is ascribed to him? 


. Preservation ? 


5, From what three different sources are | 18. Inspiration of the prophets? 
the proofs of the Holy Spirit’s per- | 19. What divine honors are ascribed t 
sonality deduced? him? 
. What is the evidence from the appel- | 20. What is the evidence of his supreme 
lations of the Holy Spirit? majesty ? 
. The actions? The honors? 21. What exalted associations are as 


. From what four different sources are 
the proofs of the Deity of the Holy 
Spirit derived? 

. What « the evidence that the Holy 
Spirit is called God ? 


cribed to him? 


. To what glaring absurdity are 


we reduced, if we deny the 
supreme Divinity of the Hob 
Spirit? 


on 
o 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pea 


CHAPTER V. 


THE HOLY TRINITY. 


Tue word Trinity is from the Latin trinitas, which is a compound 
word, from tres, three, and unus, one; therefore, the signification of the 
word is three-one, or, as it is used in theology, three in one. 

Some have objected to the use of the term Trinity, merely from the 
fact that it is not found in our version of the Scriptures; but this objec- 
tion is perfectly frivolous, if it can be shown that the Bible contains 
the idea which the word properly expresses. It would not require much 
ingenuity to embody the most heterodox sentiments by a collocation 
of Scripture phrases; and, on the contrary, truths the most clearly 
revealed may be correctly expressed without adopting the precise lan- 
guage of Scripture. The paramount object of the student of divinity 
is, to gain a correct knowledge of the sentiments of revelation. 

On the important subject of the Trinity, we will first present an illus- 
tration of the orthodox view; secondly, show that it is scriptural; and, 
thirdly, answer some objections. 

I. According to the general sentiment of orthodox Christians, the 
mode of the divine existence, as well as the essence of the divine nature, 
is one of the sublime mysteries of God, which is too profound for human 
wisdom to fathom. Upon this subject it becomes us meekly to receive 
the information with which revelation has favored us, neither doubting 
the truth of what has been revealed, nor permitting our speculations to 
travel beyond the bounds of the inspired record. 

By the Trinity, according to our understanding of the Scriptures, we 
are not to suppose that there are three Gods, and that these three Gods 
are one God; nor are we to understand that the three persons in the 
Godhead are one person: either position would not only be unscrip- 
tural, but would imply in itself a manifest contradiction. 

Nor are we to suppose that in the divine nature there are three dis- 
tinct intelligent beings, and that these three are so mysteriously and 
intimately united as to constitute but one being. This, also, would be 
both unscriptural and self-contradictory. And we may remark, that 
Socinians, Arians, and others who have written in opposition to the 


Ch. v.] THE HOLY TRINITY. 59 


Trinity, have, very generally, represented the doctrine of Trinitarians 
according to one or the other of the views already presented. 

That some advocates of the Trinity have expressed themselves in so 
ambiguous or unguarded a manner as, in some degree, to furnish a pre- 
text for this presentation of the orthodox sentiment, must be admitted ; 
but that neither of the views yet presented contains a fair statement of 
the doctrine, as held by the intelligent Trinitarians generally, may 
easily be seen by a reference to the creeds of the different orthodox 
denominations, as well as to the writings of their principal divines. The 
correct view of the subject, according to the representation of the most 
eminent orthodox divines, and the view which appears conformable to 
Scripture, is, that the Godhead emists under three distinct personalities, 
at the same time, constituting but one God. Although God the Father 
is an intelligent being, God the Son an intelligent being, and God the 
Holy Spirit an intelligent being, yet that they are not three distinct 
intelligent beings; but that the three persons in the Godhead are one 
and the same being, so far as their nature is concerned, yet subsisting 
in three different persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

It may not be unacceptable here to exhibit the opinion of several 
eminent orthodox divines on this subject, as presented by Dr. Dod- 
dridge, in the following words: 

“Dr, Waterland, Dr. A. Taylor, with the rest of the Athanasians, 
assert three proper distinct persons, entirely equal to, and independent 
upon, each other, yet making up one and the same being; and that 
though there may appear many things inexplicable in the scheme, it is 
to be charged to the weakness of our understanding, and not the 
absurdity of the doctrine itself. 

“Bishop Pearson, with whom Bishop Bull also agrees, is of opinion, 
that though God the Father is the fountain of the Deity, the whole 
divine nature is communicated from the Father to the Son, and from 
both to the Spirit, yet so as that the Father and the Son are not separate 
nor separable from the divinity, but do still exist in it, and are most 
intimately united to it. This was also Dr. Owen’s scheme.” 

Thus it may be seen that, while it is not pretended that we can com- 
prehend the manner of the existence of three persons in one God, any 
more than we can fathom the mysterious depths of the divine essence, 
yet such is the plain statement of the facts in the case, as learned from 
inspiration, that they involve in themselves no contradiction or absurdity. 
If we speak of the essential essence of the Divine Being, we say there is 
but one undivided essence, but one being, but one God; but if we speak 
of personal distinction, such as is properly expressed by the pronoun I. 


60 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1. B.1 


thou, or he, we say there are three persons in one and the same God, or 
one and the same God in three persons. But if we are called upon te 
explain how three persons can exist in one God, we reply that the sub- 
ject is neither more nor less difficult than the comprehension of any of 
the divine attributes. Our faith embraces the fact as a matter of reve- 
lation; the manner of the fact, which involves the stupendous mystery, 
not being revealed, we leave beyond the veil, as a theme which may be 
presented for contemplation when we “shall know even as also we are 
knowr.” All attempts, therefore, to explain the mystery of the Trinity, 
or the manner in which three persons constitute one God, we would 
repudiate as vain and futile, while we would plant our faith firm and 
immovable in the truth of the fact as revealed in the Bible. 

II. Our second position is, to show that the doctrine of the Trinity, as 
already exhibited, is in accordance with the Scriptures. 

1. It is necessarily implied in several positions which we have al ready 
aen established, in the preceding chapters. 

(1) Unity of God—In the second chapter, we showed, by various 
and express declarations of Scripture, that there is but one God. 
Indeed, this great principle—the unity of the Godhead—is the very 
foundation upon which the true worship is established. It is the denial 
of this which constitutes the greatest error and absurdity of paganism. 
And we may say that, if the unity of God be not established in the 
Bible, it is in vain for us to appeal to that volume for testimony on any 
point whatever. The very first of the ten commandments is, “Thou 
shalt have no other gods before me;”’ and the constant language of 
God throughout the Bible is, “ Hear, O Israel, Jehovah, our God, is 
one Jehovah.” This great truth, then, so essential for the prevention of 
idolatry, is thus strongly stamped upon the page of inspiration, and, 
we may add, abundantly confirmed by the harmony displayed in the 
works of God around us. 

(2) Deity of Christ—In the third chapter, we saw the Scripture evi- 
dence plainly establishing the real and proper divinity of Jesus Christ. 
So pointed and direct was this testimon y, as seen from the titles, attributes, 
works, and honors, ascribed to Christ, that, if we reject the doctrine of the 
Godhead of Christ, we flatly deny the word of God, nor can we appeal 
again to that volume for the establishment of any truth whatever. 

(3) Deity of the Holy Spirit—tIn the fourth chapter, we saw, with equal 
clearness and force, and by proofs of a similar character, the real Deity 
of the Holy Spirit established beyond the possibility of a doubt, unless 
we discard the Bible itself, and explain away, by a resort to strained 
and far-fetched criticism, the plainest declarations of the inspired record. 


Ch. v.] THE HOLY TRINITY. 61 


We now ask attention to the foregoing points, universally admitted 
or clearly established, and demand it at the hands of all who reject the 
Trinity, to explain and reconcile these points, if they can, without 
admitting all that is meant by the Trinity. 

(1) That God the Father is properly God, all admit. 

(2) That the Son is God, has been already proved. 

(3) That the Holy Spirit is God, has been already proved. 

(4) That there is but one God, has been already proved. 

Here, then, we say, is a Trinity clearly established. The Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are three, in one sense of the word at least. The 
first all admit to be God, and the second and third have been proved 
to be God. ‘Then it follows that there are three that are God; but it 
has also been proved that there is but one God. Then we have clearly 
established a three-one God, which is the same as a Trinity. But it is 
clear that three cannot be one in the same sense in which they are 
three. This would be self-contradictory; but for there to be three in 
one sense, and one in another sense, would involve no contradiction. 
Then it must be obvious that there are not three and one in the same 
sense. In what sense, then, shall we understand that there is one? 
Certainly in reference to the Godhead. There is but one God. But in 
what sense shall we understand that there are three? Certainly not in 
reference to the Godhead; for this, as we have seen, would be self 
contradictory. But it must be understood in reference to some other 
distinction. This we denominate a personal distinction; first, because 
it is expressed in the Scriptures by the personal pronouns, J, thou, he, 
ete.; and these, in all languages, are proper appellatives of persons: 
secondly, the expression of this distinction by the term person is scrip- 
tural; for we find the word used to distinguish the person of the Father 
from that of the Son: “Who being the brightness of his (the Father's) 
glory, and the express image of his person.” 

Thus have we seen that there is but one God, and that in the unity 
of this Godhead there are three distinctions—the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Spirit; and that these distinctions are scripturally expressed 
by the term person. Then the sum of the whole matter is this: That 
there are three persons in one God; or, in other words, the doctrine of 
the Trinity is a Bible truth. 

9. The doctrine of the Trinity is confirmed, by frequent allusions to 
a plurality and threefold distinction in the Deity, more or less direct, in 
almost all parts of the Scriptures. 

(1) In the beginning of Genesis, the name by which God first reveals 
himself to us is Elohim.a plural noun, the singular form of which is Hloah. 


62 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P... B1. 


Now, if there be no plurality of persons in the Godhead, it is difficult to 
account for the use of the plural, instead of the singular noun; especially 
as the verb connected therewith is in the singular number. Hence, there 
seems to be a strong probability that there is here a plain allusion to the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which was afterward more clearly revealed. 

(2) This conclusion is still farther confirmed by what we read in the 
26th verse of the chapter: “And God said, Let us make man in our 
image, after our likeness.” Here the personal pronoun is used three 
times in the plural form. To account for this upon any other hypothe- 
sis than that there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, is impos- 
sible. But on the supposition that there are three persons in the unity 
of the Godhead, the matter becomes plain and easy. That the Word, 
or Son of God, was the active agent in the work of creation, is declared 
in the first chapter of John; and it is remarkable that the second verse 
of the first chapter of Genesis introduces the agency of the Spirit also 
in this great work—“And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
the waters.” Thus we have the agency of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, all connected in the great work of creation, and yet “he that built 
(or made) all things is God.” Again, in the 22d verse of the third 
chapter of Genesis, we have this plural form of the pronoun repeated : 
“And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of ws, to 
know good and evil.” How difficult must it be for the anti-Trinitarian 
to find a consistent interpretation ! 

(3) The use of the three sacred names in baptism has already been men- 
tioned in proof of the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit—to which 
we may now add that we here see a direct acknowledgment of all the 
persons of the Trinity. Upon the formula of baptism we remark, that 
if there be no personal distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
why the necessity for the three narnes? and if each person named be 
not God, why the propriety of connecting the name of a creature, in 
terms of apparent perfect equality, with the name of the Supreme God, 
in a solemn act of worship? 

(4) In the conclusion of the last chapter of 2 Corinthians, we have 
this solemn form of benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with 
you all.” This benediction is virtually the offering up of a prayer to 
the three personages here specified; and from any thing that appears, 
they are all petitioned with equal solemnity and reverence. If they be 
not all divine, how could the apostle ever again admonish the Corinthi- 
ans against idolatry? Surely he had presented them an example of 
direct homage and supreme worship to a creature! 


Ch. v.) THE HOLY TRINITY. 63 


Thus have we seen the doctrine of the Trinity, or three persons in 
one God, abundantly established from the Scriptures ; first, as neces- 
sarily implied in the admitted or established facts, that there is but one 
God, that God the Father is God, that God the Son is God, and that 
God the Holy Spirit is God; secondly, we have seen it confirmed by 
frequent allusions, more or less explicit, in different parts of the Serip- 
tures, to the several persons of the Godhead. We now close our argu- 
ment with a single quotation from 1 John v. 7, which embodies in one 
verse the whole doctrine of the Trinity: “For there are three that bear 
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these 
three are one.” 

III. In the last place, we notice the principal objection which has 
been urged against this doctrine. It is this: that “ the doctrine of the 
Trinity is incomprehensible, and requires us to believe in mysteries.” 
To which we reply, that the question with us ought not to be whether 
we can comprehend the doctrine or not, but whether it is a doctrine 
declared in the Scriptures or not. If the latter can be established, then 
the circumstance of its being plain or mysterious to our understanding 
cannot affect our obligations to believe it in the least. It should be 
enough for us to know that God has spoken ; and what he has declared 
we are bound to believe, or discard the whole Bible. 

That the plain, common-sense interpretation of Scripture teaches the 
doctrine, we might almost infer from the strong disposition of Socinians 
to twist from their plain import many passages of Scripture, to expunge 
others entirely from the sacred canon, and even to undervalue inspira- 
tion itself. But the objection is based upon a false premise. It assumes 
that we ought not to believe any thing till we can comprehend it. If 
this be true, then we must hang up our flag of high-toned and universal 
skepticism; for what is there that we can comprehend? From the 
smallest insect, up through every link “of being’s endless chain,” there 
are mysteries—inexplicable mysteries—in every object that we contem- 
plate. But yet we believe firmly in the existence of things. But, after 
all that has been said by way of objection about the mystery of the 
Trinity, the difficulty is equally great upon any subject connected with 
the Divine Being; for what attribute of God is it that we can compre- 
hend? But let it be remembered that. the great mystery about which 
the objection is started, relates not to the fact that there are three 
persons in one God, but to the manner of the fact. We cannot con- 
ceive how it can be; and yet the manner of the fact we are not required 
to embrace in our faith—that is something not revealed. We are sim- 
ply required to believe the fact as declared in Scripture. 


tH ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B12 


In conclusion, we might ask, What could we gain, even in respect to 
exemption from difficulty, by renouncing the Trinity? We reply, that 
we would involve ourselves in difficulties far more numerous and _ per- 
plexing. To instance only one: How could we reconcile it to the gen- 
eral tenor of Scripture and the plan of salvation, that the great work 
of changing the heart, and preparing the soul for heaven, is repeatedly 
attributed to the “power of Christ,” and the “sanctification of the 
Spirit?” This is a work proper to God alone—a work which none but 
the divine power can effect; and yet, if we deny the Trinity, we must 
attribute it, in the supreme sense, to a creature, We must look to the 
power of a creature to renew our souls, and Jean upon a finite arm as 
the source of our eternal salvation. 

The difficulties involved in the anti-Trinitarian scheme might be 
multiplied, but enough has been said to show that the only consistent 
and scriptural scheme, and that which involves the least difficulty of all, 
is this: that there is “one only living and true God, but in the unity of 
the Godhead there are three persons—the Father, Son; and Holy Spirit 
—of equal power and glory forever.’ To him be ascribed eternal 
praise ! 

“The Scriptures, while they declare the fundamental truth of natural 
religion, that God is one, reveal two persons, each of whom, with the 
Father, we are led to consider as God, and ascribe to all the three dis- 
tinct personal properties. It is impossible that the three can be one in 
the same sense in which they are three; and therefore it follows, by 
necessary inference, that the unity of God is not a unity of persons; 
but it does not follow that it may not be a unity of a more intimate 
kind than any which we behold. A unity of consent and will neither 
corresponds to the conclusions of reason, nor is by any means adequate 
to a great part of the language of Scripture, for both concur in leading 
us to suppose a unity of nature. Whether the substance common to 
the three persons be specifically or numerically the-same, is a question 
the discussion of which cannot advance our knowledge, because neither 
of the terms is applicable to the subject; and, after all our researches 
and reading, we shall find ourselves just where we began—incapable of 
perceiving the manner in which the three persons partake of the same 
divine nature. But we are very shallow philosophers indeed, if we 
consider this as any reason for believing that they do not partake of it; 
for we are by much too ignorant of the manner of the divine existence 
to be warranted to say that the distinction of persons is an infringement 
of the divine unity. ‘It is strange boldness in men,’ says Bishop Stil- 
lingfleet, ‘to talk of contradictions in things aboya their reach. Hath 


Oh. v.} THE HOLY TRINITY. 6b 


hot God revealed w us that he created all things? and is it not reason- 
able for us to believe this, unless we are able to comprehend the manner 
of doing it? Hath not God plainly revealed that there shall he a res- 
urrection of the dead? And must we think it unreasonable to believe 
it, till we are able to comprehend all the changes of the particles of 
matter from the creation io the general resurrection? If nothing is to 
be believed but what may be comprehended, the very being of God 
must be rejected, and all his unsearchable perfections. If we believe 
the attributes of God to be infinite, how can we comprehend them? 
We are strangely puzzled in plain, ordinary, finite things; but it is 
madness to pretend to comprehend what is infinite; and yet, if the per- 
fections of God be not infinite, they cannot belong to him.’ Since then 
the Scriptures teach that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are 
one, and since the unity of three persons who partake of the same 
divine nature must of necessity be a unity of the most perfect kind, we 
may rest assured that the more we can abstract from every idea of 
inequality, division, and separation, provided we preserve the distinc- 
tion of persons, our conceptions approach the nearer to the truth.” 
(Hill’s Lectures.) 

The Bible doctrine of the Trinity is one of those sublime and glori- 
ous mysteries which the mind of man, at least while shrouded in clay, 
cannot penetrate. We may study and meditate until dost in thought, 
yet never can we comprehend the mode and nature of the Divine Being. 
A trinity of persons, in the unity of Godhead, is something of which 
we can form no definite idea. The fact is revealed to us, beyond con- 
tradiction, in God’s holy word. But, as to the manner of that fact, 
God says to reason, noble and mighty as is that faculty of the soul, 
“Thus far shalt thou go,” “and here shall thy proud” flight “be 
stayed;” and while reason lies thus humbled in the dust, shorn of her 
vaunted strength, and perhaps sullenly murmuring she will never essay 
another heavenward flight, faith meekly whispers, “Iam the resurrec- 
tion and the life.” “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have 
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for 
them that love him.” And when we shall have thrown off this earthly 
vestment for the “robe of righteousness,” and when “we shall’ know 
even as also we are known,” who can say what things may not be 
revealed to us? What knowledge can be so desirable to an immortal 
spirit as the knowledge of its Maker? Yet, hidden as are the myste- 
ries of the Christian faith, they are not gloomy nor dark; for they con- 
cern Him who is light, and love, and life. We are bound to believe all 
God has graciously reveale’l of himself; and it is no argument against 

A 


66 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. . [P.i. B.1. 


belief in the Trinity, to say it is a mystery incomprehensible. Dost 
thou, proud mortal, doubt or disbelieve thine own existence? and yet, 
canst thou tell how the coursing of the red fluid through the veins pre- 
serves thee a probationer in time? “Lord, I do believe; help thou mine 
unbelief.” Let me know thee in the pardon of all my sins through the 
Son of thy love, and in the enlightening and comforting influences of 
thy Holy Spirit! Here let me walk by faith, till “faith is turned to 
sight” in a brighter world, and I shall see without the dimming veil 
of mortality before my raptured vision! 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER V. 


Question 1. From what is the term | 14. To what does the great mystery of 


Trinity derived, and what is its the Trinity relate? 
import? 15. What are the grand positions estab- 

2. Why has the use of the term been lished in preceding chapters, in 
objected to? which the doctrine of the Trinity 

3. Is the objection a reasonable and is implied? 
just one? 16. In what sense are we to understand 

4. What are the three grand divisions that three are one? 
of this chapter? 17..How are the distinctions in the Gud- 

5. Can we thoroughly comprehend the head shown to be properly ox- 
mode of the divine existence? pressed by the term person? 

6. Are we to understand by the Trin- | 18. What allusion to the doctrine uf the 
ity, three persons in one person, or , Trinity is seen in the first o. Gen- 
three Gods in one God? esis? 

7. Are we to understand that there are | 19. How does it appear that th three 
three distinct intelligent beings in persons of the Trinity all 4d an 
the Godhead? agency in creation? 

8. How have Socinians, etc., generally | 20. How is the Trinity proved f om the 
represented the doctrine of Trini- form of baptism? 
tirians? 21. From the form of the beneé.ction ? 

3. How may this statement be seen to | 22. What verse of Scripture »mbodies 
be unfair? the whole doctrine of ne ‘Trin- 

-0. What is the correct view of the doc- ity? 
trine of the Trinity? 23. What is the grand object:.n to ths 

s1. Is each person in the Trinity an in- doctrine? 
telligent being? 24. How is the objection answered ? 

12. Are there, then, in essence, three | 25. Do the opposite sentiments involve 
distinct intelligent beings? difficulties ? 


13. What were the views of several em- | 26. What is the instance given? 
inent divines, oa this subject, as| 27. What is the least perplexing and 
given by Dr. Doddridge? most scriptural view? 


Oh. vi.) THE CREATION. Ly | 


CHAPTER VI. 


THE CREATION. 


I. We examine the nature of creation. 

The original word rendered created, in the first of Geresis, is bara, 
which, according to Kimchi, Buxtorf, and learned critics generally, 
means to bring forth into being what previously had no existence— 
an egression from nonentity to entity. From the prime meaning of the 
word itself, as well as from the process, as presented in the Mosaic 
record, we learn that God, “in the beginning,” or at the commencement 
of time, made or created the matter of which the heavens and the earth 
were formed. 

Many of the ancient heathens, ignorant of revelation, and guided 
only by the wild speculations of their own imagination, had such inad- 
equate conceptions of the character of Deity, that they could not con- 
ceive it possible for him to create the material universe out of nothing, 
Hence they supposed that matter, in a chaotic state, existed from all eter. 
nity, and that the Deity only arranged and combined the discordant 
materials, so as to bring order out of confusion, and cause the universe 
to appear in its harmony and beauty. 

As we have already seen, this fabulous account of creation is contrary 
to the Mosaic history. St. Paul, in Heb. xi. 3, appears to aim a blow 
directly at this error of the pagan philosophers, when he tells us: 
“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word 
of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which 
do appear.” The “things which do appear” are material ; but, accord- 
ing to the text just quoted, the worlds were not made of preéxistent 
matter. Indeed, the first work of creation, according to the Bible, 
appears to have been to call forth into being the materials of which the 
worlds were afterward framed. Thus we perceive that God, in the 
highest sense of the word, created all things out of nothing. 

It might easily be shown that the Mosaic account of the origin of the 
world is the only consistent theory of the material universe ever pre- 
sented. The views upon this subject of those who have rejected reve 
lation, may all be embraced in two general divisions. First, the system 


68 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 1. 


already noticed, which admits the eternity of matter, but allows that 
the power of God was exerted in forming out of the original mate 
rials furnished to his hand, and which were coéxistent with him, the 
worlds as we see them displayed around us. 

The second theory is that which teaches the eternity of the material 
universe, in its properly organized condition. 

Both these theories are not only not countenanced by revelation, but 
are in direct contradiction to its plain declarations. That they are alsc 
absurd in themselves, and encumbered by insuperable difficulties, in the 
view of reason, a little reflection will clearly evince. 

First, to suppose that matter existed from eternity, is to ascribe to it 
self-existence. That which existed from eternity could not have been 
produced by any thing else; consequently all the cause of its existence 
must be in itself; and this implies that it is self-existent and independ. 
ent. Again: that which is self-existent and independent must exist 
necessarily ; for if the cause of its existence has always been in itself, 
it could not but have existed; otherwise the necessary connection 
between cause and effect would be destroyed. Hence, if we say that 
matter existed from eternity, we assert that it existed necessarily ; and 
if its existence was necessary, so were all its parts and properties ; for 
the parts and properties of any substance inhere in the constitution of 
its essence. It appears, therefore, that if matter is eternal, it must 
exist necessarily in all its parts and properties. And if so, the partic- 
ular state in which it exists must be necessary; and then, the same 
eternal necessity in itself, which determined the state of its existence, 
must determine its continuance in the same state; consequently if mat- 
ter had existed from eternity in a chaotic form, it must have continued 
forever in the same form; and vpon that hypothesis the worlds could 
never have been produced from chaos. Thus the eternity of matter is 
seen to be unreasonable and absurd. 

In the second place, to suppose that the world existed from all eter- 
nity, in its organized state, is unreasonable. 

For, first, if eternal, it must be so in all its parts; and if in all its 
parts, then the inhabitants thereof are included; but to suppose an 
eternal succession of animals, would be to suppose an infinite number 
made up of finite numbers, which would be unreasonable ; for we may 
add as many finite numbers together as we please, yet they never can 
amount to infinity.* 


ee 


* Bishop Pearson remarks that “The actual eternity of this world is so far from 
being necessary, that it is of itself most improbable; and without the infallible 


Ch. vi} THE CREATION 69 


The present state of improvement in the arts and sciences argues 
against the eternity of the world. As a natural consequence, each 
generation may profit by the labors and experience of the preceding 
one, so that the natural course of improvement from age to age is pro- 
gressive, but all the great and important inventions and discoveries in 
the arts and sciences are of comparatively recent origin. To account 
fur this upon the supposition that men have eternally existed upon the 
earth, would be exceedingly difficult. 

Once more: the comparatively modern date of the most ancient rec- 
ords, is another argument against the eternity of the world in its organ- 
ized state. Had the nations of the earth existed from all eternity, we 
might reasonably suppose that history, monumental or recorded, would 
carry us back for multiplied hundreds of centuries. These are only a 
few of the difficulties with which we find ourselves entangled when, in 
reference to the origin of the world, we wish to become “ wise above 
what is written.” 

Il. The date of creation. 

According to the Septuagint, the date of creation is placed near six 
thousand years before Christ; but Archbishop Usher has shown, to the 
general satisfaction of the learned, that, according to the Hebrew chro- 
nology, the creation took place four thousand and four years previous 
to the birth of Christ. The original Hebrew is certainly better author- 
ity than a translation which, like the Septuagint, is admitted to contain 
many mistakes. Accordingly the computation of Usher has been gen- 
erally acceded to as correct. 

Corroborative testimony to the correctness of this account may be 
gathered from general history and traditionary legends of the different 
nations of the earth. None of these, which bear any evidence of 
authenticity, extend so far as the date of Moses; and from the repre- 
sentation which they make, in reference to the times of their earliest 
date, the evidence can scarcely be resisted that the world was then in a 
state of infancy. 

For a quarter of a century past, there has been awakened, both in 
Europe and America, an exciting interest on the subject of geology. 
What has added intensity to this interest is the impression on the 
minds of many that the principles and facts of that new and interesting 
department of natural science come in conflict with the teachings of 
revelation. The avidity with which the skeptical inclinations of some 


certainty of faith, there is no single person carries more evidences of his youth 
than the world of its novelty.” (Exposition of the Creed.) 


70 ZLKMEN‘I'S UF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.1 


shallow-minded sciolists have led them boastingly to parade the new 
discoveries of geology as a scientific demonstration discrediting the his- 
toric record of Moses in reference to the date of creation, has originated 
in the minds of many intelligent Christians a suspicious jealousy in 
reference to geological science. Among our eminent theological writers, 
Richard Watson, of England, and Moses Stuart, of our own country, 
threw the weight of their great names in the scale against the preten 
sions of geology. 

It has, however, now become clearly perceptible to the most sober. 
minded and profound thinkers, buth among philosophers and divines, 
that geological science, as set forth by her ablest devotees, has no prin- 
ciples or facts to array against the teachings of the Bible. Mere 
empirics in science, as Cowper expressed it, 

“Drill and bore 
The solid earth, and from the strata there 
Extract a register, by which we learn 


That He who made it, and revealed its date 
To Moses, was mistaken in its age.” 


But to pretend that revelation has any thing to fear or to lose by ts 
contact with geology, is evidence at once of the weakness of hun an 
reason, and of a lack of correct information on the subjects involved. 
When the Copernican system of astronomy was first proclaimed, after 
the shock produced by its novelty had subsided, and the smoke of a 
fierce but short-lived controversy had been blown away, what loss had 
revelation sustained? The sun continued to rise and set, and the earth 
to revolve in her orbit and wheel on her axis, with the same regularity 
they had observed from the beginning; and the advocates of revelation 
read the sacred page with a deeper interest, and interpreted its record 
with a clearer light. Just so it will assuredly be with the discoveries 
of geology. Light may be shed on the interpretation of the text, pro- 
ducing greater harmony of view in the department of exegesis, but the 
truth of the record will only stand the more thoroughly vindicated, and 
the more highly appreciated. 

From the earliest ages of Christianity to the present day, learned 
commentators have differed in their interpretation of the record of cre- 
ation, as given by Moses in the first chapter of Genesis. Without an 
attempt to decide at present between the claims of these different inter. 
pretations, we proceed to show that, according to any of them, all che 
agreed facts of geology (the most intelligent geologists themselves being 
Judges) may be fully admitted, and yet the record of Moses stand 
secure—neither disproved, discredited, nor in the least shaken. 


th. vi.] THE CREATION. n 


1. The interpretation which has ever been the most generally adopted 
by biblical expositors, is that which is the most literal. It assumes that 
Moses, in the first chapter of Genesis, dates the “ beginning” of crea- 
tion at the commencement of his “six days;” and that during those 
“days” God called into being from nonentity the entire universe of 
finite existences, whether material or immaterial. 

Now, admitting this to be the proper construction of the language of 
Moses, how can the facts of geology disprove or invalidate his record ? 
Suppose all the learned geologists in the world were to agree that, ac- 
cording to the time occupied in the formation of the strata of the earth, 
in all parts where the examination has been made and the time of the 
formation arertained, the date of creation should be fixed many millions 
of years anterior to the date of Moses, what reliance could be placed on 
this description of evidence? Let the philosopher dig his fossil from the 
earth, or rend the granite from the mountain; let him examine its 
structure, and analyze its essence, and calculate the time requisite for 
its formation by the action of fire and water, what can he thus prove as 
to the date of creation? May not the Christian reply, Is not God 
omnipotent? And was not his creative act a miracle? Might he not. 
therefore, have formed and arranged all those particles just as they now 
appear in a single day as easily as in a million of centuries? That he 
could have so done, none can deny: that he did not so do, geology has 
not proved, and, in the nature of things, cannot prove. Where, then, is 
the skeptical argument against the record of Moses? It is scattered to 
the winds. 

Creation, in all its parts, had a beginning: men, trees, and plants, no 
more certainly than rocks. Man was not made first an infant, but he 
appeared at once in the maturity and perfection of his powers. And 
who can doubt that the trees of paradise were originally created in 
fruit-bearing maturity? Why might we not build a similar argument 
from the bones and muscles of Adam the next morning after his crea- 
tion, and prove thereby that he was then fifty or two hundred years 
eld? Or, from an examination of the folds in the wood of a tree of 
paradise an hour after it was spoken into being, why might we not, by 
the same mode of argument, demonstrate that it was the growth of a 
century? If, therefore, God could form the body of man in all its 
bones, sinews, and muscles, and the wood of the tree in all its folds, 
circles, and texture, just as they would subsequently appear after pass- 
ing by a regular process of years to maturity, could he not create the 
rocks and fossil remains of geslogy in a similar way? Let the skeptic 
answer the question. 


12 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (F.i B.D 


If it he argued, that for the regular formation of the earth, for its 
transition from a fluid to a solid state, and for the production of its 
peculiar structure, a period immensely longer is requisite than that 
allowed by the “six days” of Moses—if this position be urged, may it 
not be replied that the infinite power of God could have accomplished 
. the whole work, however complicated and stupendous, just as easily in 
an hour as in millions of years? To speak of a great length of time 
being requisite for perfecting the work of creation, is manifestly incon 
sistent with a correct understanding of the divine perfections. 

Admit the alleged facts of geology—admit that these facts, suffi. 
ciently numerous and pertinent, have been so established as to remove 
all doubt from the position that the earth is immensely more than six 
thousand years old —what then? Has the Bible been discredited? 
Has the Mosaic record been demonstrated a myth, a fable, or a fraud ? 
By n. means. The citadel of revelation can sustain a thousand such 
assaults, and its foundation not be shaken nor its pillars give way. But 
Christianity is not shut up to the literal interpretation of the Mosaic 
record of creation. 

2. Another method of interpreting the first chapter of Genesis, is to 
assume that the phrase “in the beginning,” with which the chapter 
opens, is to be understood as referring to a period immensely distant in 
the past, in which “God created the heaven and the earth”—a period 
far removed from the “six days” of which Moses speaks, 

Now, if this interpretation be allowed, what more is requisite to bring 
the geological into full harmony with the biblical record? Admit that 
Moses does not fix the epoch of the creation of matter; that an inter- 
val of indefinite length may have preceded the six days’ work—adinit 
this, and if those “six days” may have been natural days, what more 
do we need? That this is sufficient to harmonize the geological with 
the biblical record, some of the most eminent geologists have conceded; 
among whom we may mention Dr. J. Pye Smith, Dr. Buckland, Dr. 
Harris, Dr. King, Prof. Sedgwick, and various others. 

Although the theory here under review has been adopted very gene- 
rally by Christian geologists, it is not indebted to that modern science 
for its origin. It was sanctioned by learned commentators in the early 
ages of Christianity. It was adopted by Augustin, Theodoret, Justin 
Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, and Origen. In more modern 
times, it was favored by Bishops Patrick, Horsley, and Gleig, as also 
by Baumgarten, and many others. 

Dr. Chalmers has likewise thrown the weight of his great name in 
favor of this theory. He says: “The detailed history of creation, in 


Ub vi.) THE CREATION. 78 


the first chapter of Genesis, begins at the middle of the second verse ; 
and what precedes might be understood as an introductory sentence. 
by which we are most appositely told both that God created all things 
at the first, and that afterward—by what interval of time is not speci- 
fied—the earth lapsed into a chaos, from the darkness and disorder of 
which the present system or economy of things was made to arise. 
Between the initial act and the details of Genesis, the world, for aught 
we know, might have been the theater of many revolutions, the traces 
of which geology may still investigate.” 

3. Another theory on the subject is, that the six demiurgic days are 
to be construed as metaphorical days, each implying an indefinite but 
long period—perhaps thousands of years. 

‘This view of the subject was sanctioned by Josephus, Philo, Augus- 
tin, and the Venerable Bede. In Germany, it was adopted by Hahn, 
Hensler, and Knapp. In England, it has been advocated by Profes- 
sors Lee and Wait, of Cambridge University ; in Scotland, by Hugh 
Miller; and by Bush, Barrows, and Hitchcock, in this country. 

Some of the abettors of this theory, while they contend that the 
demiurgic days should be construed metaphorically— representing a long 
period—yet concede that Moses understood them as literal days. ‘Thus 
they suppose that he, like some of the prophets, understood not the full 
import of the things he was inspired to write; and that, like as proph- 
ecy is explained by the developments of history, so the record of Moses 
concerning the past finds its illustration in the developments of geology. 
Probably most intelligent Christians of the present day will be inclined, 
with Chalmers, to favor the second theory of interpretation which we 
have presented in regard to the Mosaic record of creation; but what- 
ever may be our decision in this respect, we need have no apprehension 
that the Bible can suffer from scientific discovery or investigation. 
What though the mere sciolist may seize upon geology as unfriendly to 
revelation, yet the more thoroughly its- facts and principles become 
known and understood, the more manifest becomes the truth that, like 
the developments of astronomy, they only tend to the elucidation and 
confirmation of the Bible record. 

III. The eztent of creation is the next point to be considered. 

A question of interest to some minds, though entirely speculative in 
its character, is this: Are we to suppose that Moses gives an account 
of the entire creation of God, or merely of our world and those worlds 
with which we are more or less connected, while many other systems of 
worlds throughout the immensity of space may have been created per- 
haps millions of ages anterior to that date? 


14 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY [P.i. BI 


On the one hand it has been said that to suppose the Almighty te 
have remained alone, a solitary being amid immensity, from all eter- 
nity, till a few thousand years ago, without once putting forth his crea- 
tive energies, does not comport with a rational view of the wonder. 
working Jehovah. 

Again, it is argued that “the morning stars sang together, and all 
the sons of God shouted for joy,” at the birth of creation; and that, as 
we may conclude from the history of the fall, the angels must have 
been created some time previous to the Mosaic creation, that sufficient 
time may be allowed for their apostasy and subsequent early attack 
upon man in paradise. 

To all this, it has been replied, first, that however long the period 
which we suppose creation to have commenced previous to the “six 
days” of Moses, still, if it had a commencement at all, there must have 
been an eternity before it commenced, and, therefore, the Deity must 
have existed alone, just as long as if nothing had been created till the 
“six days” specified by Moses; unless we say that one eternity is 
longer than another, which is absurd. Again, with regard to the 
angels rejoicing at the birth of creation, it is replied that they might 
have been created on the first or second day, or among the first of God’s 
works, and so have been ready to rejoice as they saw the different parts 
of creation rising up after them. As to their having had time to fall 
from their first estate, and appear so early in paradise to seduce our first 
parents, it is replied that none can tell how suddenly they may have 
rebelled and been expelled from heaven, or how long man may have 
existed in paradise before he was visited by the tempter. Upon so 
difficult a question we would scarce volunteer an opinion. This much, 
at least, seems clear, that the entire system of which our world forms a 
part, was created in the “six days.” 

Again, it has been asked, Is creation limited in extent, or is it spread 
ouv infinitely throughout the immensity of space? To this, we may be 
allowed to reply that, as creation must be finite in its different parts, it 
cannot be infinite in the aggregate; for infinity cannot be made up of 
finite parts; therefore, whatever we may say as to the unlimited nature 
of simple space, we conclude that the creation of God must be limited 
in its extent. At the same time that we avow the belief that the crea- 
tion of God is not absolutely unlimited in extent, we must also admit 
that we have abundant reason to infer that the works of God are vast 
and extensive. This world of ours is only a speck, compared with the 
numerous and extensive orbs connected with our own system. How 
exceedingly small, then, must it appear, when we embrace in our con: 


Uh. vi.) THE CREATION. 76 


templation those numerous systems which we may suppose to be spread 
out amid the vast expanse around us! To suppose that the Creator 
had formed so great a number of mighty globes for no grand and 
important purpose, would directly impeach his wisdom; therefore, the 
reasonable inference is, that they are peopled by an innumerable mul- 
titude of intelligent beings, brought into existence by the power of 
Omnipotence, for the wise and good purpose of showing forth the per- 
fections and glory of Him who “filleth all in all.” 

But we now inquire more particularly concerning the intelligent part 
of creation. So far as our information has extended, the intelligent 
creation may all be embraced in two classes—angels and men. The 
Bible furnishes some account of the history, character, and employment 
of these two classes of beings; and we will endeavor to ascertain, to 
some extent, the important information within our reach on this inter- 
esting theme. We reserve, however, for a subsequent chapter, the con- 
sideration of the primeval state of man. 

Ancets. The term angel is from the Greek angelos, and signifies, 
primarily, not a nature, but an office. It means a messenger, or one sent 
on an embassy. 

But the term is very generally used in Scripture to denote a superior 
order of intelligences inhabiting the heavenly regions. Here, on the 
very threshold of the subject, we are met by a skeptical objection. 
Some have even denied the very existence of such beings. In the 
twenty-third chapter and eighth verse of the Acts, we learn that the 
Sadducees denied the existence of angels and spirits. This ancient 
heresy has had its advocates in almost every age of the world, even 
among professed believers in revelation. As the Scriptures in numer- 
ous passages speak of angels as intelligent and real beings, those who 
have denied their real existence have been compelled to explain all 
these passages in a figurative sense. Thus, when unholy angels are 
spoken of, we are told that nothing is implied but evil principles or 
unholy thoughts; and when holy angels are spoken of, we are told that 
nothing is meant but good principles or holy thoughts. To such as 
make thus free with their Bibles, and entirely subvert, by so palpable 
an absurdity, the plainest declarations of Scripture, we would only say, 
Go on, if you choose. If the plain account of Scripture does not con- 
vince you of the real existence of angels, to reason with you would be 
perfectly useless. Indeed, if the entire Bible history of the existence 
and doings of angels is an allegory or figure, we may as well discard 
the whole volume of revelation as an idle dream or a silly fable. 

From the Bible we learn that there are two descriptions of angels — 


76 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P-4/B22. 


fallen or unholy spirits, and holy or good spirits. We inquire briefly 
concerning each. 

1. Or Unnoty ANGELS. That these, as they proceeded from the 
hand of the Creator, were both holy and happy beings, we may clearly 
infer from the divine character. He who is perfectly holy and good 
could not have produced unholy and miserable beings. His nature for- 
bids it. In confirmation of this truth, we read in the first of Genesis: 
“And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very 
good.” Well may we be assured that every creature, as it first came 
from the creating hand, was free from the least taint of moral evil. 
That these evil angels were once holy and happy, and fell from that 
exalted state, is clearly taught in the following passages:—John viii. 44: 
“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will 
do; he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth ; 
because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh 
f his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.’ Jude 6: “And the 
angels which kept not thetr first estate, but left their own habitation, he 
hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment 
of the great day.” 2 Pet. ii. 4: “For if God spared not the angels that 
sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of 
darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” 

From these texts we learn that the devil “abode not in the truth,” 
(implying that he was once in it,) and that the sinning angels left their 
origina] habitation, and are now dwellers in the regions of darkness. 
These are the plain scriptural facts. 

The question has often been asked, How came they to sin? There 
has been much curious speculation in endeavoring to account for the 
origin of moral evil. That the angels were under a law, is clear from 
the fact that they sinned; and if under a law which it was possible 
for them to violate, they must have been in a state of trial and account- 
ability to God. With all these facts in reference to their condition 
before us, we see no more difficulty in accounting for their fall than for 
the fall of man, except that no foreign tempter could have seduced the 
former. Here we are asked, How could they fall into sin without being 
first tempted? And how could they be tempted, when, as yet, there 
was nothing evil in the universe? This much we may say in their case: 

First, that they did sin and fall, the Scriptures declare. 

Second, that there was no evil being in the universe to tempt them 
to sin, we may clearly infer from the Scriptures. 

But how it was that they sinned without being tempted; or, if self. 
tempted, how they could have originated the temptation within their 


Oh. vi.} THE CREATION, 17 


own nature, which as yet was holy, perhaps we cannot fully compre 
hend; but the facts are revealed, and we are compelled to believe them. 
Some light, however, may be reflected upon this subject, when we 
remember that the possibility of sinning is essential to a state uf 
accountability. And, therefore, to say that God could not make it 
possible for angels to sin, without first creating moral evil, would be to 
say that God could not create a moral accountable agent, which would 
- be alike irreconcilable with the divine character and the Bible testi 
mony. Having premised these things, in reference to the fall of angels, 
we would now inquire concerning their nature, employment, and destiny. 

(1) THerr Nature. That they are spiritual beings, is evident from 
the Scriptures: “He maketh his angels spirits;’ but to comprehend 
the precise manner in which these spiritual essences exist, is, with us, 
impossible. 

That they are unholy and unhappy is also clearly manifest from the 
place of their present habitation; they are said to be “reserved in 
chains under darkness,” and to have been “cast down to Turtarus, or 
hell.” As hell is represented to be their principal abode, and that by 
way of punishment for their sin, we see that they are in a state of tor- 
ment; but we are not to infer that they are absolutely confined to their 
prison. This, the history of the fall of man, as well as many other 
parts of the Scriptures, contradicts. They are capable of visiting our 
world, and perhaps other parts of the universe; but wherever they may 
be, they are still “unclean spirits, seeking rest and finding none.” 
They cannot escape from their wretchedness. 

(2) Emproyment. The Bible teaches us something concerning the 
employment of these spirits. 

First. They are sometimes permitted to afflict the bodies of men. 

This we learn from the history of Job. Satan was the agent by 
whom he was grievously afflicted with disease. We learn the same 
from the many diseased persons in the days of our Saviour, said to be 
possessed of devils. 

It has been alleged, it is true, that these were not really and literally 
possessed of devils, but that they were diseased with epilepsy, palsy, 
madness, etc.; and that they were figuratively said to be “ possessed of 
devils.” To this we would reply, in the language of Dr. Campbell, of 
Scotland: “When we find mention made of the number of demons in 
particular possessions, their actions so expressly distinguished from those 
of the men possessed, conversations held by the former in regard to the 
disposal of them after their expulsion, and accounts given how they 
were actually disposed of; when we find diseases and passions ascribed 


78 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pe Bal 


peculiarly to them, and similitudes taken from the conduct which they 
usually observe, it is impossible to deny their existence, without admit- 
ting that the sacred historians were either deceived themselves with 
regard to them, or intended to deceive their readers.” 

Second. They are permitted to ecercise an evil influence over the minds 
and hearts of men, as appears from the following passages:—Eph. vi. 12: 
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, 
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against 
spiritual wickedness in high places.” Rev. xx. 7, 8: “And when the 
thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison ; 
and shall go out to deceive the nations.” 2 Thess. ii. 9,10: “Even him, 
whose coming is afte> the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, 
and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in 
them that perish.” In Eph. ii. 2, Satan is called “the spirit that now 
worketh in the children of disobedience.” In 2 Cor. ii. 11, St. Paul says, 
“we are not ignorant of his devices;” and in 1 Pet. v. 8, he is said to 
be “as a roaring lion, walking about, seeking whom he may devour.” 

From these scriptures we learn that evil spirits are endeavoring, by 
diligent and persevering effort, to destroy the souls of men; but for 
our encouragement be it known, that they can only go the length of 
their chain. They can tempt, but they cannot coerce us to sin; and we 
are told to “resist the devil, and he will flee from us.” 

(3) THEerr Destiny. We learn from the Scriptures that these evil 
spirits are “reserved in chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of 
the great day.” Again, the place of “everlasting fire,” to which the 
wicked are to be sentenced at judgment, is said to be “ prepared for the 
devil and his angels.” From all which we infer that, though they are 
now in torment, they are reserved for the judgment, when a more dis- 
mal doom awaits them. For them there is no redemption, no mercy, 
no hope. 

The question has been asked, Why might not provision have been 
made for their recovery? It is enough to know that God, who always 
does right, has passed them by. They sinned against light and knowl- 
edge. Each stood or fell for himself alone. And while the justice of 
God shall be displayed in their eternal destruction, his goodness is no 
more impeached than it will be in the punishment of wicked men. In 
reference to both classes, it may be said, they had a fair trial, but they 
chose the evil, and must “eat the fruit of their doings.” 

2. Hoty Ancers. We come in the next place to inquire concern- 
ing holy angels. In reference to them, various items of information 
may be gained from the Bible. 


Ch. vi.) THE CREATION. 79 


(1) We speak of their character and condition. 

First. They are possessed of a high degree of intelligence and wisdom. 
In 2 Sam. xiv. 17, we find the woman of Tekoah speaking to David as 
follows: “As an angel of God, so is my lord the king to discern good 
and bad.” Their superior intelligence may be inferred, 1. From their 
spirituality. They are not clogged by the frailties of weak and perish- 
ing bodies. 2. From the place of their abode. They “ever behold the 
face of God” in glory, and dwell amid the effulgence of heavenly light. 
3. From their long observation and experience. For multiplied ages 
they have been gazing in sweet contemplation on the unfolding attri- 
butes of Deity, and winging their unwearied flight to various and dis- 
tant parts of God’s dominions, to execute the divine command, and wit- 
ness the wonders of the divine administration. To what lofty heights 
must they be elevated in knowledge and wisdom! Subjects the most 
mysterious to the strongest intellect of man, may all be spread out to 
the view of a seraph with the clearness of the light of day. 

Second. They are holy beings. In Matt. xxv. 31, they are called 
“the holy angels;” and that they have never departed, in the least, 
from the path of rectitude, we infer from the petition in the Lord’s 
Prayer: “Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” Again, we 
infer their holiness from the place of their residence. No unclean thing 
can enter heaven; but, for at least six thousand years, they have been 
veiling their faces before the throne, and crying out, with reverential 
humility, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts.” 

Third. They are possessed of great activity and strength. In Ps. ciii 
20, we read: “Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength.” It 
is true they derive all their strength from Jehovah, but he has endued 
them with astonishing power. The destroying angel smote the first- 
born in the Egyptian families; and some of the most signal judgments 
of God have been executed by angelic ministers. Again, with what 
astonishing velocity, may we suppose, they can transport themselves 
from world to world! They are represented as flying on wings, and as 
they are purely spiritual in their nature, we may suppose that they can 
fly with the velocity of thought. We have an instance of this in the 
ninth chapter of Daniel. When Daniel commenced his prayer, the 
angel Gabriel was commanded to fly swiftly from heaven, and ere the 
supplication was closed, he touched Daniel, “about the time of the 
evening obiation.” 

Fourth. They possess uninterrupted happiness. ‘This we infer from 
the holiness of their nature, as well as from their constant communior 
with God in the climes of bliss. They can have no remorse for the 


80 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 1. 


past, no feartul apprehensions of the future. ‘They drink immortal 
Joys from the pure fount of bliss, and feast forever on the enrapturing 
visions of the divine glory. 

(2) We next inquire concerning their employment. 

First. They are used as agents in the affairs of Divine Providence. In 
reference to this, Milton has said: 


‘Millions of spiritual creatures walk the earth 
Unseen, both when we wake and when we sleep.” 


Au instance of angelic agency in the affairs of Providence is seen in 
the book of Daniel, x. 13: “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia 
withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief 
princes, came to help me.” But one of the most striking instances of 
the power of an angelic minister is, perhaps, the destruction of the hosts 
of Sennacherib, who had defied the living God. 2 Kings xix. 35: “It 
came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out, and smote 
in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand ; 
and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead 
corpses.” It has been supposed that this destruction was caused by the 
pestilential wind so fatal in the East; but if so, the angel was the agent 
used by Providence in bringing the wind, at the time, as an instrument 
of death, more terrible than the sword. 

Second. In the next place, holy angels are used as ministering spirits to 
the saints, 

1. In revealing to them the divine will. As instances of this, we have 
the cases of Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel. ‘The revelation of the 
prophetic history of the Church was made to St. John, in Patmos, 
through the ministry of an angel. 

2. They watch over the saints to preserve them from evil. In Ps. xei. 
10, 12, we read: “There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any 
plague come nigh thy dwelling. For he shall give his angels charge 
over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways. They shall bear thee up in 
their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.” And in Ps, xxxiv. 
7, we read: “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that 
feur him, and delivereth them.” In Matt. xviil. 10, our Saviour says: 
“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto 
you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father 
which is in heaven.” Again, in Heb. i. 14, we read: “Are they not all 
ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of 
salvation?” 

The ministry of angels to the saints is fully taught in the above pas 


Ch. vi.) THE CREATION: 81 


sages. We are not, however, to infer that they are to preserve the 
saints from every calamity of life; for afflictions and trials are neces 
sary for the perfecting of the saints, for the maturing of their graces, 
and fitting them for glory. But they are about our path continually. 
They are with us when we sleep and when we are awake, to preserve 
us from evil, and to encircle us with an invisible wall of protection. 
<8. They convey the souls of the saints to the mansions of bliss. They 
‘attend them through life as their guard and protection, commissioned 
from their heavenly Father, to comfort them in distress, to deliver them 
from their enemies, and accompany them in all their weary pilgrimage; 
but when the hour of death arrives, they wait around the expiring saint 
to bear his spirit home to God. This is beautifully illustrated in Luke 
xvi. 22: when Lazarus died, it is said, “he was carried by the angels 
into Abraham’s bosom.” We look upon death as a scene of sorrow 
and distress; but only let the veil that hides from our view the invisible 
world be removed, and we should see, in the presence of the dying 
Christian, angelic bands, with the sweet melody of heavenly harps, 
commingling with the sobs and groans of weeping friends, and softly 
whispering, “Sister spirit, come away.” Truly may we say, 


“The chamber where the good man meets his fate 
Is privileged beyond the common walk 
Of virtuous life, quite in the verge of heaven.” 


4. But, lastly, they shall minister to the saints at the last day, when the 
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised. ‘The Lord “shall send 
forth his angels with a mighty sound of a trumpet, to gather together 
his elect” from the four quarters of the earth, and by them shall all 
the saints “be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.” 

Much more might be said, but we have given a faint outline of the 
condition and employment of the angelic intelligences, as revealed in 
the Scriptures. How noble and exalted a portion are these celestial 
beings of the wonderful works of the great Creator! How large and 
extended views must they have of the infinite wisdom and goodness of 
God! How profound their adoration, and how increasingly so, as they 
continually witness the beautiful developments of love and power in 
the wide universe of God’s creation and providence! How glorious is 
their employment! Day and night they are fulfilling their Maker’s 
high behests, not as a dull task, but as a sweet and living pleasure. 
Lord, aid us, that we may “do thy will on earth, as the angels do it in 
heaven !” 


6 


82 


ELEMENfs OF DIVINITY. 


(Pi. BL 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VI. 


Question 1. In what sense is creation 


2. 


3. 


Nake 


12. 


16 


properly understood ? 

How did the pagan philosophers un- 
derstand it? 

How is the eternity of matter shown 
to be absurd? 


. How may the eternity of the world, 


in its organized state, be disproved ? 


. What is the date of creation, accord- 


ing to the Septuagint? 


. What, according to the Hebrew, 


shown by Bishop Usher? 


. Which chronology is the most prob- 


ably correct? 


. What philosophical objection is start- 


ed to the Mosaic date? 


. How may it be refuted ? 
. What are the objections to under- 


standing the “six days” mentioned 
by Moses, literally # 

What are the arguments for the Jit- 
eral intepretation ? 

What are the reasons for supposing 
‘hat the entire creation of God was 
not included in the account of 
Moses? 

What is the reply to these argu- 
ments? 

May we reasonably suppose crea- 
tion to be infinite in extent? 

Why not? 

In what two classes may the intelli- 
gent creation be embraced? 


17. 


18. 
. What is the evidence that thers are 


In what sense is the term angel to 
be understood ? 
What two classes of angels are there? 


fallen angels? 


. How is their apostasy accounted 


for? 


. What is the nature of their being? 
. What is the evidence that they are 


unhappy ? 


. What is their employment? 
. What is the evidence that they may 


afflict the body? 


. What is the evidence that they afflict 


and seduce the soul? 


. What is the nature of their des- 


tiny? 


. What is the nature of holy angels? 
. What is the evidence of their intel- 


ligence? 


. Of their holiness? 
. Of their activity and strength? 


31. Of their happiness? 


32. What is the evidence of their agency 


in the affairs of Providence? 


. What is the proof that they are min- 


istering spirits, in making known 
the divine will? 


. In watching over and preserving 


the saints from evil? 


. in conveying them home to heaven? 
. In scenes and events of the last 


day? 


Ub. 7] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. Aa 


CHAPTER VII. 


DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 


In theology, divine providence means the care and superintendence 
God exercises over his creation. There is, perhaps, no doctrine con- 
nected with theology more abundantly and explicitly taught in Scrip- 
ture than the one here proposed. Yet few subjects of revelation are 
more intricate to common minds, or less understood by the generality 
of Christians. That there is a divine providence over the affairs of this 
world, we all believe; and from it the Christian heart derives much of 
its richest consolations. But how few have clear, distinct, and adequate 
conceptions of that providence, and of the manner in which it is exer- 
cised! Hence we should be admonished of the importance of care and 
’ deliberation, that on this difficult and important question we may arrive 
at scriptural and correct views. But after our utmost research, we 
must not expect to be able thoroughly to comprehend all the mysteries 
connected with the subject; for, in our present fallen and imperfect 
state, it is a theme too profound for our comprehension. What we may 
know hereafter, we must wait for the developments of the future to 
unfold. But it is certainly both our duty and our privilege, even in 
this world, to learn all in our power concerning the ways of God, as 
exhibited in his works and in his word. 

It is interesting to know that among the sages and philosophers of 
pagan antiquity, some very correct notions were entertained concerning 
the divine providence. With them it was a favorite saying: “The high- 
est link in nature’s chain is fastened to Jupiter’s chair.” Such language 
can only be understood as implying that the providential control of the 
vast fabric of nature is grasped by the hand of the Supreme Divinity. 

Several different theories have been advocated in reference to divine 
providence. Some have so construed the subject as to deny to second 
causes, as operating through the “laws of nature,” as they are termed, 
any influence whatever; so that God is the only efficient agent in the 
universe; and the whole system of nature exhibits but a collection of 
puppets, or lifeless, immobile, and insensate substances, moving only 
as directly and constantly controlled by the hand of the Creator. This 


84 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.1 


is fatalism. Others represent the system of nature as one vast and 
perfect machine which the Deity let fall from his creative hand, with 
all its parts so well. adjusted and so harmoniously connected, that it 
needs no farther attention from its Maker; but while he, after having 
been an active sovereign in creation, retires forever, a quiescent specta 
tor, the system he has made continues to go on, working out its own 
results, like a clock wound up at the first, but then left to itself to tell 
off its hours, minutes, and seconds, and all its fated periods, upon the 
principles of absolute independency. This, too, is nothing but fatal 
ism, though arrived at by a different route. 

Another system teaches that ordinarily nature is left to sel f-govern: 
ment by her own laws; but that the Creator sometimes interferes, yet 
only in the case of miracles. 

But what we consider the scriptural view differs from all these the- 
ories. It allows to all created entities, whether animate or inanimate 
the possession of all those qualities or powers with which the Creator 
has endued them. It admits that in those properties and faculties pos- 
sessed by creatures, and derived from the hand of the Creator, and 
preserved in being from moment to moment by his- providence, there 
exists a real efficiency, or causative power; but all is superintended by 
an all-pervading and controlling providence. 

Thus inanimate, vegetable, irrational, and rational creation, each has 
a nature peculiar to itself, and in the divine providence is governed 
by Jaws in accordance with that nature. God, who is over nature in 
his superintending providence, works through the regular channel of 
second causes, or independent of them, as he may see proper. He can 
command the winds and the clouds, the fire and the water, the snow 
and the hail, and cause them to obey him, either by directing the 
agency of second causes, or independently of that agency. Or he can 
send his angels as “ ministering spirits;” or he can control the minds 
and hearts of kings and subjects by the agency of his Holy Spirit, 
and thus manage the machinery of his providence, either through 
nature’s laws or independently of them, so as to secure the results of 
his will, whether for the detection and punishment of the criminal, or 
for the deliverance and comfort of the saint. 

The entire creation of God, so far as our information extends, is com- 
prised in four classes of substances, or entities. First, inanimate mate- 
rial substances; secondly, living vegetable substances ; thirdly, irrational 
animals ; fourthly, rational accountable moral agents. As the line distin- 
guishing between these four classes of created things is clearly marked, 
each class being essentially different from the others, it necessarily fol- 


Oh. vii.) DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 85 


lows that the principles of the divine government pertaining tu each 
of these several classes of creatures must be accordingly different, so 
as to be adapted to the nature of the things to be governed. ‘To suppose 
that God would adopt the same principles of government in reference 
to things so essentially varied in their nature, as are a clod, a tree, a 
bird, and a man, would be a palpable impeachment of the divine wis- 
dom. Hence we shall find that while the divine providence in its broad 
sweep grasps under its control all substances and natures, all entities 
and beings, yet there is clearly to be seen a wise adaptation of the prin- 
ciples of the divine administration to the nature of the things to be gov- 
erned. The providence of God is exercised over lifeless matter, living 
vegetation, irrational animals, and accountable agents, according to the 
respective nature of each class. 

That the divine providence is exercised over every particle of the 
created universe, may be clearly inferred even from the fact of creation. 
It has been well said by the great American lexicographer: “He 
that acknowledges a creation and denies a providence, involves himself 
in a palpable contradiction ; for the same power which caused a thing 
to exist is necessary to continue its existence.” 

I. The doctrine of a divine providence over inanimate creation is 
taught in such scriptures as the following:—* Which removeth the 
mountains, and they know not: which overturneth them in his anger. 
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof 
tremble. Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not, and sealeth 
up the stars. Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth 
upon the waves of the sea.” Job ix. 5-8. “The day is thine, the night 
also is thine: thou hast prepared the light and the sun. Thou hast set 
all the borders of the earth: thou hast made summer and winter.” 
Ps. Ixxiv. 16,17. ‘He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he 
toucheth the hills, and they smoke.” Ps. civ. 82. “ He maketh his sun 
to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and 
on the unjust.” Matt. v.45. “Who hath measured the waters in the 
hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and compre- 
hended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains 
in scales, and the hills in a balance.” Isa. x]. 12. 

From these, and numerous other scriptures of similar import, it is 
clearly taught that God extends his ruling providence over all material 
things—over the heavens and the earth, the mountains and the seas, 
the day and the night, the summer and the winter, the sun and the 
stars, the hills and the dust, the sunshine and the rain. But we 
inquire, Upon what principle, according to what system of laws, does 


86 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. BL 


Gou exercise this providential control? Upon this question there can 
be no controversy. All will agree that inanimate creation is not gov- 
erned by laws adapted to moral agents, irrational animals, cr living 
vegetables; but by such laws as properly belong to lifeless matter. 
Physical substances are governed by physical laws. It is a principle in 
natural science, long since too firmly established to be shaken by the wild 
speculations of modern empirics, that inertia is a property of matter. 
Hence all merely material substances are under the absolute control 
of resistless force. Matter—lifeless matter—can only move as it is 
moved. It can only act as it is acted upon. And when acted upon, it 
must of necessity move in exact conformity to the extent and direction 
of the force applied. Thus it appears that, in the nature of things, 
lifeless material substances can be governed by no law but that of phys- 
ical force. And this influence is of the most absolute and resistless 
character conceivable. By this force, and upon this principle, the 
planets revolve, the seasons rotate, the vapor ascends, the rain and the 
snow fall from above, and the rivers rush to the ocean. 

All substances of this material class are said to be governed by the 
laws of nature; and these laws are considered unchangeable. Hence 
it is contended by some that there can be no divine providence over the 
material universe farther than what is the necessary result of the laws 
of nature. We reserve for another place in this chapter an examina- 
tion of the position just mentioned, but a few remarks on the subject 
seem to be appropriate in this connection. When it is said that the 
laws of nature govern the physical universe, a sense is by many persons 
attached to the phrase—“ laws of nature”—which is not in accordance 
with the reality of things. It is supposed that the “laws of nature” 
mean something having an abstract, substantive existence, capable 
of exerting, independently of arly immediate aid from God, a direct, 
positive, and causative influence. This illusive view of the subject has 
led many a superficial thinker into the vortex of an insidious skepti- 
cism. The first step is to deny any immediate divine agency in the 
government of material things, and thus put God out of the natural 
world. The next step is to deny any immediate divine influence upon 
the minds of intelligent agents, and thus put God out of the moral 
world. But surely such as reason thus have not stopped to examine 
their premises! What, we ask, are the “laws of nature?” This phrase 
cannot mean any thing but God’s method of agency in the control of 
nature. A law in itself can exert no independent causative influence 
on any substance whatever. The “laws of nature,” so called, owe their 
existence to the will and appointment of God; and if their existence, 


Th. vii.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 87 


also the continuance of that existence. The same agency of God which 
gave these laws their being and influence must still be perpetuated at 
every step in the processes of nature and throughout every instant of 
duration, or those laws at once become extinct, and their influence is 
lost. Hence, to assert that material things are governed by the laws 
of nature, independently of any immediate influence from God, is the 
same as to say that they are not governed at all; but that all material 
things are left adrift upon the wild sea of chaos, without order, system, 
or control of any kind, or from any source. 

From what has been said, the conclusion is inevitable, first, that 
God’s providence controls the material universe; secondly, that this con- 
trol is by the immediate power and wisdom of God, through the medium 
of physical agencies, and according to those principles which he has 
appointed for the exertion of his own power. Hence God governs 
nature, in all the complicated parts of her vast machinery, even from 
the mighty globes that roll amid the immensity of space, to the mote 
that floats in the sunbeam, by his own immediate agency, as really as 
if no such thing as the “laws of nature” had ever been heard of, o1 
conceived to exist. By his command, (which must be understood as a 
continuous active influence, rolling on from moment to moment, like an 
ever-flowing stream,) the sun still shineth in the heavens and “ knoweth 
his going down”—at his bidding “all nature stands, and stars their 
courses move.” What though it be admitted that God, as a general 
rule, governs nature through the medium of second causes, is his gov- 
ernment any the less real on that account? He whose hand holds the 
topmost link in the vast chain on which universal creation is suspended, 
supports the immense fabric in all its parts, as really as if the whole 
were hung upon a single link. As the electric fluid, flying from the 
battery along the track of ten thousand conductors, derives all its 
power from its point of departure, so the providential power of God, 
though it may be exerted through innumerable secondary agencies, is 
as really the divine power, as if we heard a voice proclaim, from every 
link in the extended chain, “It is the Lord; let him do what seemeth 
to him good.” 

I< That the divine providence extends also over vegetable creation, 
appears from the following scriptures :—“ He causeth the grass to grow 
for the cattle, and herb for the service of man; that he may bring 
forth food out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the heart of 
man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth 
man’s heart. The trees of the Lord are full of sap; the cedars of 
Lebanon which he hath planted.” Ps. civ. 14-16. “Consider the lilies 


88 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. 1. 


of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and 
yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed 
like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field,” 
etc. Matt. vi. 28-30. “And I will cause the shower to 2ome down in 
his season: there shall be showers of blessing. And the tree of the 
field shall yield her fruit, and the earth shall. yield her increase.” 
Ezek. xxxiv. 26, 27. 

These scriptures, to which many more might be added, clearly set 
forth the superintending providence of God in reference to the vegeta- 
ble productions of the earth. Although, as a general rule, the earth 
yields her fruit as a reward to the hand of industry, yet it is not with- 
out the divine blessing being superadded. Neither the grass, nor the 
lily, nor the corn, can grow or prosper, unless God sends the refreshing 
rain and the warming sunshine, as well as imparts to the earth her 
fructifying properties. 

But in what manner does the divine providence operate in this 
department? Here we find a new element introduced in the gov- 
ernment of God. Vegetable nature is managed on principles in 
accordance with vegetable life. And he who made all things, and 
gave to all substances their peculiar properties, knows how to adjust the 
principles of his providential control to the nature of the things to 
which it is applied. . While in reference to lifeless matter all things are 
controlled by mere physical force, in the vegetable kingdom, the pecu- 
liar aptitudes and properties of seeds, grasses, and grains, as well as the 
character of soils and the nature of climates, are all taken into the 
account; and God exercises his providence through these diversified 
agencies, and according to the laws he has ordained in reference to each. 
Yet, amid the operation of all these secondary causes pertaining to 
vegetable nature, the fruitfulness of the earth is as really dependent 
upon the gracious providence of God, as was the multiplication of the 
loaves and fishes upon the power of the Redeemer. The only difference 
is this: in the one case, the blessing flowed through a miraculous chan- 
nel; in the other, through the regular channel of nature. But in both 
cases, all is the result of the divine power exerted according to God’s 
own plan. 

III. The next point to be considered is the providence of God in 
reference to irrational animals.. This doctrine is recognized in such 
scriptures as the following :—“The young lions roar after their prey, 
and seek their meat from God. These wait all upon thee; that thou 
mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them 
they gather: thou openest thy hand, they are filled with good.” Vs 


Uh. vii.) DIVINE PROVIDENCE. &9 


civ. 21,27, 28. “The eyes of all wait upon thee; and thou givest them 
their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the 
desire of every living thing.” Ps. exlv. 15, 16.. “ Behold the fowls of 
the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; 
yet your heavenly Father feedeth them.” Matt. vi. 26. “ Who pro- 
videth for the raven his food? when his young ones ery unto God, they 
wander for lack of meat.” Job xxxviii. 41. “He giveth to the beast 
his food, and to the young ravens which ery.” Ps. exlvii. 9. 

Nothing can be plainer than these passages render the fact, that the 
beasts of the forest, the fowls of the air, and “every living thing,” are 
~ dependent upon God’s providence for life, and food, and all that they 
enjov. ‘They are under the divine watch-care continually, and are pre- 
served and fed by the beneficent hand of their Creator. But in this 
department of God’s dominions is recognized a law, according to 
which the divine providence operates, which is quite distinct from that 
observed either in reference to inanimate matter, or to the vegetable 
creation. As the plant, or the tree, in the scale of created things, rises 
one step above the clod or the pebble, so does the beast or the bird rise 
one step above all inanimate and insentient existences. Here we find 
a class of beings capable of sensation and emotion. Though irrational, 
they can feel, and are susceptible of enjoyment and of misery. God has 
endued them with wonderful instincts, leading them to self-preservation 
and the propagation of their kind; and according to the principles of 
this great law of their nature, he exercises over them his providential 
superintendency. He governs them, not as stocks and stones, nor yet 
as plants and trees, but according to the peculiar nature he has given 
them. 

But still they are as dependent upon God’s ever-present providence 
for their preservation, and for their daily food, as if he had given them 
no instinct, impelling them to fly from danger, and directing them how 
to seek their appropriate sustenance in. those channels which he has 
prescribed. Instead of sending his angels with food in their hands to 
place literally in the open mouths of all living animals, as the parent 
birds feed their young, God having provided a supply in nature’s store- 
house, directs and aids all the beasts, and birds, and all living animals, 
by impressing upon them the law of instinct, in the procurement of the 
food prepared for them by his bounteous providence. The channel 
through which the benefit is conveyed, being also a merciful arrange- 
ment of the Creator, cannot diminish the degree of their depend- 
ence upon divine providence. They “all receive their meat from 


God.” 


90 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. BL 


IV. We now call attention to the providence of God, in reference to 
mankind as moral accountable agents, 

1. This doctrine is taught in Scripture. 

“The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and 
the good.” Prov. xv. 3. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, 
as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Prov. xxi. 
1. “The way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh 
to direct his steps.” Jer. x. 28. “A man’s heart deviseth his way, but 
the Lord directeth his steps.” Prov. xvi. 9. “He doeth according to 
his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; 
and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Dan. 
iv. 85, “His kingdom ruleth over all.” Ps, ciii. 19. “For in him we 
live, and move, and have our being.” Acts xvii. 28. 

That the doctrine of a divine providence over the affairs of men in 
this life is taught in the foregoing scriptures, no candid person can 
dispute; but the important matter to be considered is the sense in 
which this doctrine should be understood. Hence we proceed more par- 
ticularly to examine— 

2. The nature of divine providence. 

(1) It is universal in extent. It pertains to all things, everywhere, 
great and small—for, “The eyes of the Lord are in every place.” 
Nothing can escape the surveillance of his all-pervading providence. It 
embraces the angels in heaven, as well as men upon earth. It extends 
to our very being ; for in him we “have our being.” It embraces our 
lives; for “in him we live.” It embraces our actions; for “in him we 
move.” We may devise and plan, but the Lord “ directeth our steps.” 
It pertains alike to great and small things. It rules over empires and 
kingdoms: “ For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the 
west, nor from the south. But God is the judge: he putteth down 
one, and setteth up another.” Ps, Ixxv. 6,7. It regards things the 
most minute, and apparently insignificant; for our Saviour says, “Are 
not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on 
the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are 
all numbered.” Matt. x. 29, 30. 

(2) It is special in its application, This is not only clearly inferable 
from the scriptures already adduced, but numerous exemplifications of 
the principle are recorded in the Bible. 

We see it in the case of Joseph. His brethren had wickedly sold 
him into Egypt; but God, in his good providence, while he permitted 
this sinful act, accompanied the young man in all his fortunes in the 
land of strangers. Hence Joseph says to his brethren: “But as fox 


Oh. vii.) DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 91 


you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring 
to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.” Gen. 1. 20. 

We see a special interposition of providence clearly manifest in the 
case of Elijah. When hungry in the wilderness, by a direct providence 
of God he was fed by the ravens. And again, when fleeing from the 
face of his persecutors, and resting under the shade of a juniper-tree, 
his refreshments were furnished him by the hand of an angel. ‘Thus 
we might speak of Samuel and David, of Daniel and Jeremiah, of 
Peter and John, of Paul and Silas, and hosts of others; for the Bible 
is replete with the record of the divine interposition in behalf of God’s 
people. 

But the attempt is made to set all these Bible instances aside, on the 
ground that they were miraculous. It is argued that God may exert a 
special providence in the case of miracles, but that we have no right to 
expect it in ordinary affairs. Our first reply to this objection is, that 
although some of the instances referred to were properly miraculous, 
yet they were not all of that character. We see in the history of 
Joseph nothing but the regular workings of providence through the 
channels of nature. Our second reply is, that numerous instances of 
the manifest care of a special providence are given in Scripture, in 
which there is no evidence of any thing miraculous. Our third reply 
is, that we have already shown, from numerous explicit declarations of 
Scripture, that divine providence regards all things and all events, 
whether great or small, whether ordinary or miraculous. 

3. We next examine the principles according to which divine provi- 
dence is exercised over intelligent human agents. 

First, we inquire, Is this providence particular, or only general f 
Under this question is presented the great difficulty in regard to this 
subject. Dr. Webster has sensibly remarked that “some persons 
admit a general providence, but deny a particular providence, not con- 
sidering that a general providence consists of particulars.” In accord- 
ance with the position here so clearly stated by our renowned lexicog- 
rapher, we will now proceed to prove that the providence of God is not 
only general, but particular. 

(1) To admit a general, but to deny a particular, providence, is a 
palpable adoption of infidel principles. The Bible, as already clearly 
shown, most explicitly teaches a particular providence. Hence we can 
only deny that doctrine by a wholesale rejection of the Scriptures. 
That avowed infidels should scoff at a particular providence, is what we 
might reasonably expect. It is in perfect consistency with their “creed 
of unbelief.” Bt that professed Christians, with the open Bible io 


92 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.1. 


their hands, shvuld thus shamelessly espouse a principle so flatly con 
tradictory to the express teachings of the inspired word, is truly mar- 
velous. 

(2) This denial of a particular providence, while admitting a general 
providence, is wphilosophical. Ask the abettors of this theory what 
they mean by a general providence without particulars, and they can 
give you no definite or consistent answer. They may expatiate about 
the “laws of nature,” or the necessary connection between “cause and 
effect ;” but urge them to define their terms, and they are driven into 
“confusion worse confounded.” To talk of a general providence with- 
out particulars, is as senseless and unmeaning as to speak of an extended 
chain without separate links. Just as the links make the chain, and as 
there can be no chain without the separate links, so do particulars 
make the general p»>vidence; and there can be no general providence 
without the distinct particulars. In any concatenated connection of 
causes and effects, where the first cause produces the first effect, and that 
first effect becomes the second cause producing the second effect, and so 
on to the end of the concatenation—in any such case as this, the first 
cause acts efficiently all along the concatenated line, and is as really 
causative of the last effect as of the first. Hence, if God governs the 
world by a general providence reaching through the connected chain 
of causes and effects, or, in other words, through all that harmonious 
system styled the “laws of nature,” it necessarily follows that his gov- 
ernment extends alike to all parts of the system; and if general, it 
must be particular, and can be no more the one than the other. 

But perhaps an objector may say that, according to this principle of 
reasoning, Then God, the first great cause, is the only real agent in the 
universe, and must be the responsible author of all things, even of the 
sinful actions of men. We reply, that a superficial and hasty reasoner 
may so conclude; and thus has originated the infidel scheme of philosophic’ 
necessity, and the unscriptural dogma of Calvinistic predestination. 
But no one who will be at the pains to consider with care the method 
of the divine government and providence, in. reference to the different 
classes of things the Creator has made, and over which he exercises 
dominion, need allow himself to drift into this vortex of error and delu- 
sion. But this leads us to show that— 

(3) The denial of a particular providence, or the assumption that it 
involves the doctrine of necessity, is repugnant to the principles of the 
divine administration in reference to intelligent moral agents, as set forth 
in the Seriptures. . 

To infer that the doctrine of necessity, making God the a thor of 


Oh. vii.J DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 98 


sin, results frum the view of a particular providence which we have 
taken, is to assume that God governs moral agents just as he governs 
inanimate matter. But this assumption is both unphilosophical and 
unscriptural. 

First, it is wnphilosophical. The wisdom, goodness, and all the attri- 
butes of the divine Being, must lead him to superintend all the sub- 
stances and beings he has created, according to the properties with 
which he has endued them. He must control matter as natter, .nd 
spirit as spirit. THe must govern a block, a plant, an insect, and a man, 
each according to its respective nature. How he governs inanimate 
matter, vegetable nature, and irrational animals, has already been con- 
sidered, But shall we conclude that a God of infinite perfections will 
govern man, with all his exalted powers—made only “a little lower 
than the angels” —by the same system of laws by which he governs the 
beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the hyssop upon the wall, o1 
the pebbles of the brook? Such a conclusion would be most unphilo- 
sophical. 

But it would be also unscriptural. The Bible sets forth that man, 
being a moral agent, is governed by a system of moral laws. To sup- 
pose that God cannot govern man as really by moral laws as he con- 
trols the material universe by physical laws, would be an impeachment 
of his attributes. His government is as real in the one case as in the 
other, though conducted on different principles. Blocks and pebbles 
being inert matter, capable of moving only as they are moved, are gov- 
erned absolutely and irresistibly by physical force. But man, being an 
intelligent moral agent, capable of reasoning, of understanding the 
distinction between right and wrong, of feeling the power of conscience 
and the influence of motives, and of appreciating reward and punish- 
ment, is governed by moral laws, commanding what is right, and pro- 
hibiting what is wrong. In the one case, there being no moral agent 
involved, all is necessary and absolute. In the other case, moral agents 
being concerned, the government is modified in its administration, 
according to the contingency of human actions. Yet, in the govern- 
ment of man by moral laws, the divine administration is as firm and 
as unswerving from its principles as are the laws of nature. It is no 
more certain that water will seek its level, or that fire will burn, 
than it is that “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned.” In the one case, material sub- 
stances are governed by a changeless physical law; in the other, moral 
agents by a moral gospel statute ; but in both cases, the administration 
is fixed with equal firmness upon its own unswerving basis. 


94 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. BL 


It may be admitted that God’s method of extending his providentia] 
superintendency to every act of moral agents, so as to “leave free the 
human will,” and not affect human responsibility, is profoundly myste 
rious. But is not the government of God over the material world— 
managing the seas, wheeling the clouds, directing the tornado, feeding 
the young ravens when they ery, and not allowing a sparrow to fall 
without his leave, (and all this without obstructing the laws of nature,) 
—is not this, we demand, a mystery equally beyond our grasp? But 
these truths being plainly taught in the Bible, we are bound to admit 
them, or be overwhelmed by the muddy waters of skepticism. 

But while the providence of God extends its sway wide as creation 
over all the works of his hands, yet we should ever remember that this 
superintendency is so exercised, that while God is the author of all 
good—* the Father of lights,” from whom “cometh down every good 
gift, and every perfect gift”—yet he is not the author of sin, but only 
by his providence permits it—that is, he does not coercively prevent it, 
and thus destroy man’s moral agency. But even in reference to the 
sinful acts of men, this providence is so exercised as to bring good out 
of evil. Thus the Psalmist says: “Surely the wrath of man shall 
praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” Ps. Ixxvi. 10. 

V. But let us, in conclusion, glance at the difficulties in which we shall 
be involved, if we deny the doctrine of a particular providence. 

1. Discard this doctrine, and on what principle can we see any ground 
for prayer? Weare commanded to ask God for all the blessings we 
need, whether temporal or spiritual, with the promise that our petitions, 
when offered aright in the name of Jesus, shall be heard and answered. 
But if God exercises no particular providence over the things of this 
world, to pray to him for these blessings would be solemn mockery. 
Upon that supposition, how could we consistently pray, “Give us this 
day our daily bread”? Again, deny a particular providence, and what 
meaning can we attach to such scriptures as these :— The effectual 
fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” “The eyes of the 
Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry”? 
Jas. v.16; Ps. xxxiv. 15. 

The Bible is replete with commands to pray, accompanied by the 
promise that our prayers shall be heard and answered. It also records 
numerous instances of direct answers to prayer. Deny a particular 
providence, and these scriptures are all perfectly inexplicable. 

Assume that God, after having created the world, impressed upon it 
what philosophers term “the laws of nature,” and then retired within 
himself, leaving nature and her laws to control all things as best they 


Ch. vii.] DIVINE PROVIDENCE. 96 


could, not concerning himself by the exercise of any particular providence 
over the world, and who that believes the position could ever ask God 
for a single blessing? But, what is far worse, were God for a single 
moment to withdraw his providential hand from creation, universal 
nature would instantly rush into chaotic ruin, or sink back into nonen- 
tity. For he who created all things, “ upholdeth all things by the word 
of his power.” “By him all things cousist.” In a word, to pray toa 
God without a providence, would be as absurd as to invoke the sense- 
less rocks or mountains. But, on the other hand, admit that God, 
though unseen by mortal eye, is everywhere present, swaying the scep- 
ter of his providence over every. portion of his vast dominions, and 
what abundant reason have we to look to him in prayer for every thing 
we need ! 

9. If the doctrine of a particular providence be discarded, what 
ground can there be for thanksgiving to God, or for trust in hin? How 
ean we thank him for the food we receive, the raiment we put on, or 
the rest we enjoy? Or how can we put our trust in him, as our pre- 
server or protector? Job exclaims: “Though he slay me, yet will I 
trust in him.” Did he believe in a God without a special providence? 
David says: “In God have I put my trust; I will not fear what flesh 
ean do unto me.” How could he look for help from God, except by 
his special providence? 

8. Again, how rich are the consolations which the pious in all ages 
have derived from their reliance on God’s providential care! David 
says: “The children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy 
wings.” Ps. xxxvi. 7. And again: “The Lord will give grace and 
glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly.” 
Ps. Ixxxiv. 11. God, by the mouth of Isaiah, promises: “ When thou 
passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, 
they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou 
shalt not be burnt; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.” Isa, xliii. 
9. And &t. Paul affirms: “All things work together for good to them 
that love God.” Rom. viii. 28. 

Tear away from the Christian his confidence in the ever-abiding pres- 
ence of God, and in the watchful care of his providence, and you rob 
him of his firmest support amid the trials and conflicts of life. It was 
this which inspired the ancient prophets, apostles, and martyrs, with 
courage to defy the menaces and persecutions of all their foes; which 
nerved thé heart of Luther to stand so firm amid the raging storm that 
surrounded him; and which enabled Wesley, with his expiring breath, 
to exclaim: “The best of all is, God is with us!” 


96 


2. 


6. 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


{P.1. B. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VII. 
Question 1. What is the definition of 


divine providence in theology ? 
In what four general classes is the 
creation of God considered? 


. Is the line of distinction between 


these classes clearly marked ? 


. Is the divine government the same in 


reference to each class? 


. What scriptures set forth the divine 


providence over inanimate creation ? 

Upon what principles, in this depart- 
ment, is the divine providence exer- 
cised ? 


. What scriptures exhibit the divine 


providence in reference to vegetable 
nature ? 


. According to what law is this provi- 


dence exercised ? 


. What scriptures prove the divine 


10 


11. 


12. 


providence in reference to irra- 
tional animals # 

. In what manner is this providence 
exercised ? 

What scriptures show that divine 
providence extends to mankind as 
moral agents ? 

What is the first item named as char- 
acteristic of this providence, and 
what scriptures prove it? 

. What is the second item, and how 

is it proved? 

. How are the principles of this provi- 

dence illustrated ? 


. Is it particular, or only general? 


. By what arguments is a particular 
providence sustained ? 

. In what difficulties are we involved. 
if we deny a particular providence? 


PART I.—DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK II].—DOCTRINES RELATING TO MAN. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


THE PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 


Arter the Creator had formed the inferior parts of sublunary cre- 
ation, man, the most exalted and noble being of earth, was next pro- 
duced. Referring to the series of beings produced by the Creator, a 
learned author has remarked: “ Yet, near the top of the series, we meet 
with a being whose physical organization is the perfected antitype of 
all other animals; who subjects all others to his sway, and converts 
even the fiercest elements into servants, placed at once upon the earth 
as the crown of all. What a stretch of credulity does it demand to 
explain this wonderful phenomenon irrespective of divine miraculous 
power! On this last and grandest act of creation, God hath impressed 
the signet of his wisdom and might so deeply that skepticism tries in 
vain to deface it. Man’s creation, as taught by geology, rises up as a 
lofty monument of miraculous intervention in nature, beating back the 
waves of unbelief, and reflecting afar the divine wisdom and glory.” 
(Hitcheock.) 

In the investigation of man’s character and condition, several points 
of interest present themselves to our view. 

1. His nature was twofold—material and immaterial; or, in other 
words, he had a body and a soul. His body was “formed of the dust 
of the ground;” and was material, like the earth whence it was taken. 
But his soul was immaterial; in this respect, like the God from whom 
it proceeded. 

The question has been asked, Whether the soul of man was properly 
created, or was it merely an emanation from the Deity? The former 

7 (97) 


98 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 2 


opinion is more in accordance with the Scriptures, and more generally 
adopted. ‘To suppose that the soul was not created, in the proper sense 
of the word, would be to deny that man was a created being; for the 
soul is the most important part of his nature. Nay, more, it would be 
to deny the real existence of the soul altogether; for if it was not cre- 
ated, then it must be a part of God; but God is infinite, without parw, 
and indivisible; therefore the idea is absurd in itself. But could we 
free the position trom absurdity in that sense, difficulty would meet us 
from another quarter. The souls of the ungodly are to be punished 
with “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord ;” conse 
quent'y they cannot be a spark of the divine nature. The conclusion, 
then, is clear, that we must either admit that God created the soul of 
man out of nothing, or deny its real existence altogether. 

2. In the divine image. The inspired delineation of the primitive 
character of man is, that he was “in the image, and after the likeness, 
of God.” We proceed, tnerefore, to inquire more RRS in what 
that “image or likeness” consisted. 

No theory ever advanced upon this subject is, at 3 more absurd 
than that which refers this image to the body. “God 1s a Spirit,” with- 
out bodily shape or parts, and therefore the body of man could not, as 
such, be in the divine image. 

Others have made this image to consist in the dominion given to man 
over the works of creation; but this notion is refuted by the fact that 
man received this dominion after he had been created; whereas, he was 
made in the image of God. 

In endeavoring to ascertain in what this image consisted, we cannot 
fix upon one single quality, and say that it consisted in that alone, but 
we shall find several particulars in which it consisted. 

(1) Spirituality is the first we shall name. God is called “the Father 
of spirits,” doubtless in allusion to man’s resemblance to his Creator in 
the spirituality of his nature. In Acis xvii. 29, we read: “Forasmuch 
then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the God- 
head is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s 
device.” ; 

The argument of the apostle here is evidently based upon man’s 
resemblance to God in spirituality. The argument is this: as man is 
a spiritual being, if he is the offspring of God, then God must be a 
spiritual being; consequently the Godhead cannot be a material sub- 
stance “like unto gold, or silver, or stone.” Although there is this 
resemblance in spirituality, yet we cannot say that the mba esseuce 
of Deity is not vastly superior, in refinement and purity, to that of the 


Oh. viii.) THE PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 99 


most exalted creature. But the comprehension of a spiritual essence 
transcends our utmost powers. 

(2) Knowledge is the next particular in which we shall notice that 
this image consisted. This we prove from Col. iil, 10, reading as fol- 
lows: “And have put on the new man, whiclr is renewed in knowledge 
after the image of him that created him.” Here is a plain allusion to 
the image of God in which man was originally made. Upon this pas- 
sage Macknight adds these words: “Even as, in the first creation, God 
made man after his own image.” In respect to the degree of knowl- 
edge with which man was originally endued, commentators have widely 
differed. Some have represented him, in this respect, almost in a state 
of infancy, having nearly every thing to learn; while others have 
exalted him almost, if not altogether, to angelic perfection. The prob- 
able truth lies between the two extremes. That man was inferior, in 
this respect, to the angels, we may infer from the testimony of Paul: 
he was made “a little ower than the angels.” That his knowledge was 
exceedingly great, we may infer from the purity and perfection of his 
nature. Moral evil had not deranged and enervated his powers, or 
enshrouded him in darkness. We may also very naturally be led to 
the same conclusion, from his history in paradise; his readiness in 
naming appropriately the various animals presented before him, and 
his capability of holding converse with his Maker. 

(3) Holiness, or moral purity, is the next and the most important 
part of this image of God which we shall notice. In Eph. iv. 24, we 
read: “And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in 
righteousness and true holiness.” Here the renewal of our moral 
nature, which in the Scriptures generally is represented as a recovery 
from the polluting consequences of sin, is said to be “after God,” that 
is, after the image of God; and this image is said to consist in “ right- 
_eousness and true holiness.” That man originally possessed absolute 
and essential holiness, independent of God, we do not believe. None 
but God, the fountain of holiness, can possess this quality in an inde- 
pendent and supreme sense. Man, therefore, derived holiness from his 
immediate connection and direct communion with God. That such 
was his condition, we may confidently infer from this very fact of his 
communion with his God. It is also clearly implied in the sentence of 
absolute approval pronounced by the Creator upon his works, They 
were said to be “very good.” Such they could not have been, if unho- 
liness, in the least degree, attached to any of them. He who is infin- 
itely holy himself, could not, consistently with his nature, have produced 
an unholy creature. The stream must partake of the nature of the 


100 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. 2 


fountain. Therefore, man was created, in the moral sense, “without 
spot or wrinkle.” 

(4) Immortality is the last thing we shall notice in which this image 
consisted. This we urderstand to apply to the body as well as the soul 
of man. It relates to his entire compound nature. That man never 
would have died but for the introduction of sin, is the irresistible con- 
clusion from the reasoning of St. Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, 
where he shows that “death entered into the world by sin.” Again, it 
is implied in the original penalty of the law: “In the day thou eatest 
thereof, thou shalt surely die.” Most certainly the promse is here 
implied that if he continued in obedience he should live. With these 
direct testimonies to man’s original immortality before us, we can feel 
no inclination to dispute with those who contend that man would have 
died literally, whether he had sinned or not. If men choose to amuse 
themselves with their own fancies, in direct opposition to the plainest 
Scripture, we will leave them to the enjoyment of the pleasing reverie. 

Again, we may clearly infer that immortality was a part of the image 
of God in which man was created, from Gen. ix. 6: “Whoso sheddeth 
man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God 
made he man.” Now, as the heinousness of the crime of murder 
results from the fact that man was made in the image of God, that 
image must have consisted, in part, in immortality, or we cannot see 
the force of the reasoning. : 

Some have adopted the idea that the body of man was created nat- 
urally mortal, but that this natural tendency to dissolution, by a wise 
arrangement, was counteracted by means of the “tree of life.” We 
confess we cannot see the scriptural authority, or the force of the rea- 
soning, by which this theory is sustained. Even admitting that the 
tree of life was the medium through which God was pleased to continue 
the existence of man, it would not follow that he was naturally mortal, . 
unless the terms be taken in a different acceptation from any in which 
they are ever used in application to man. What, I would ask, are we 
to understand by the natural qualities of man? Are they not those 
qualities belonging to his nature by the arrangement of his Creator? 
And if so, was not man secured in the possession of the immortality of 
his nature as absolutely, upon the supposition that the tree of life was 
the medium, as he could have been in any other way? And will it not 
result from this that his immortality is just as natural, if secured 
through that channel, as it could be if derived from any other source? 
None but God can possess immortality independently. 

The continuance of the existence of the soul of man, yea, even the 


Ch. viii.) THE PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 101 


being of angels, is just as dependent on the will, and results as really 
from the power of God, as the immortality of man’s body could have 
done, supposing it to have been secured by the tree of life. Whether 
the divine power by which the perpetuity of our existence is secured 
be exerted through the medium of the tree of life, or in any other way, 
it is no less really the power of God. Hence it would follow that, even 
upon this supposition, the body of man was just as naturally immortal 
aa his soul could have been. But is not the idea that the body of man 
originally was by nature mortal, antagonistic to the general tenor of 
Scripture on this subject, that “death is the wages of sin?” I cannot 
but think that the more scriptural comment upon the “tree of life” 
would be to say that it was rather a seal or pledge of the clearly implied 
promise of God that man, a being created naturally immortal, should, 
upon the condition of obedience, be continued in that state. Be this 
as it may, the point is clear that man was made immortal, according to 
the will and power of God; and this, in part, constituted the divine 
image in which he was made. 

Man’s immortality may be inferred from the analogy of God’s works. 

Look upon man—what is he? He is the highest link, so far as 
known to us independently of revelation, in the vast chain of beings 
throughout creation. He is the head and ruler over all the creatures 
of God; and, as shown by numerous testimonies in all ages, he is the 
object of the peculiar care and regard of his Maker. Along-side with 
man are all created things else ; and over them is extended the dominion 
and providence of God, controlling all in reference to the accommoda- 
tion and good of man. And yet, from age to age, all physical nature 
stands secure on its basis, shining on in undiminished strength, and 
beauty, and glory; while man, the highest, the noblest, the most exalted 
of all God’s creatures, if he be not immortal, is doomed to a transitory 
existence, for no apparent good purpose, and then to fade from the uni- 
verse as “a dream when one awaketh.” 

All nature, man excepted, seems to occupy an appropriate position 
and to contribute to a desirable end. But man, for whom “all nature 
stands, and stars their courses move,” appears to be out of place, and 
existing for no assignable good reason, and contributing to no worthy 
and appropriate end. Weak and imperfect, depraved and polluted, 
yet full of sublime aspirations and immortal hopes, he “fleeth as a 
shadow,” and is gone. As he feels that his powers are just beginning 
to unfold, he is struck down by death in his career; and plans and 
enterprises, joys and sorrows, in one moment are extinguished forever. 

Can we suppose that all this mass of aimless, capricious, incoherent, 


102 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.2 


incongruous results, has been contrived and produced by the God of 
infinite wisdom and goodness? The position is too appalling to be 
entertained. But if we view this life as but a stepping-stone to the 
next—as but the opening scene to an endless career—a probation, a 
school of discipline, in reference to an endless hereafter; with this view 
of the subject, the clouds are dispersed—man appears in his true char- 
acter, and a flood of light is poured upon his duty and destiny, while 
the perfections of God are displayed in his history. 

Thus have we seen that this image of God, in which man was cre- 
ated, embraced spirituality, knowledge, holiness, and immortality. 

3. The last thing which we shall notice, in reference to the primeval 
state of man, is that he was constituted happy. 

Formed an intellectual and spiritual essence, endued with rational 
faculties capable of lofty and holy exercise, and admitted into social 
intercourse and intimate communion with God, he shared the blessing 
of pure and uninterrupted felicity. Placed in a world where all was 
order, harmony, and beauty—exempt from all infirmity or affliction of 
body, and conscious of no imbecility or imperfection of soul—he was 
permitted, with undisturbed freedom of body and mind, and conscivus 
innocence and rectitude of heart, to range the garden of paradise, 
where opening flowers and unfolding beauties, sweetest odors and rich- 
est melodies, proclaimed in heavenly accent, to the eye, the ear, and 
every sense of man, that God, his Maker, had formed him for hap- 
piness. 

Thus have we faintly sketched the condition in which our race was 
originally placed by the Creator. Our first parents were holy and 
happy. Placed as man was in a garden of delights, where all was 
beauty, freshness, fragrance, and music, how could he have one want? 
Created with high capabilities of acquiring knowledge, how well 
rewarded would be all his inquiries! Made holy, loving God with all 
his soul, how sweet to him was communion with the Father of his spirit! 
Every act was worship; for no sin was there. As he gazed enraptured 
on the vaulted firmament, studded with glittering worlds, or sat in the 
soft light of the moon, or walked forth in the softer twilight, no doubt 
his soul ascended in silent or speaking gratitude to Him who had fitted 
up for his children so beautiful an abode. When the light cf day 
appeared in the east, and the songs of morning burst upon his ear, 
man’s heart would be attuned to worship, and the bowers of paradise 
would resound with the notes of his grateful praise. Thus the recur- 
rence of day and night would alike bring seasons of holy devotion. 
With what delighted anticipation would he look forward to the periods 


Ch. viii.] THE PRIMEVAL STATE OF MAN. 103 


eet apart for communion with the Holy One! He noted not the slow- 
moving of the hours, for he knew no suffering, no grief; he hid not his 
face and wept, for as yet he knew no sin. But, alas, he fell from this 
glorious estate! He “ forsook the fountain of living waters” and turned 
t» an impure stream. In an evil hour he listened to the voice of the 
tempter; and sweet must have been his charming to cause man to for- 
get the voice of his Father, God, saying to him, “In the day thou eat- 
est thereof, thou shalt surely die!” 

Let us now, in conclusion, take a general survey of the material and 
intellectual universe, as spoken into being by the omnific fiat of Jeho- 
vah. What, we ask, was the grand object of God in calling into being 
this stupendous fabric of creation?» It could not have been requisite 
for the promotion of his own essential happiness, for he was perfectly 
and independently happy in the possession of his own inimitable per- 
fections. The great moving principle in the Deity, which resulted in 
the work of creation, we are led to believe, from all that we know of 
the divine character and administration, was benevolence, or love. He 
designed to exhibit his own perfections, and to show forth his own 
declarative glory, in the happiness of millions of intelligent existences. 
Infinite wisdom saw that happiness would be promoted by creation; 
infinite love delighted in this noble end; and infinite power spoke the 
word, and a universe appeared in being. Myriads of sentient existences 
have thus been permitted to taste the streams of bliss, and all that fill 
the station assigned them may rejoice forever in ascriptions of praise to 
Him “in whom they live, and move, and have their being.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VIII. 


Question 1. What was man’s primeval| 8. Did this immortality apply also to 


twofold nature? the body? 
2. Was his soul created out of nothing? | 9. Was the body created naturally im- 
3. In what did the divine image, in mortal? 
which man was created, consist? 10. What may we suppose was the de- 
4. What is the evidence that it embraced sign of the “tree of life?” 
spirituality ? 11. What is the evidence that man war _ 
5. That it embraced knowledge? originally happy? 
6. That it embraced holiness? 12. What was the grand design of God 


%. That it embraced immortality? in producing creation? 


104 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B. 2 


CHAPTER IX 
THE FALL OF MAN—THE DIVINE ADMINISTRATION VINDICATED. 


Tne Bible is a rich treasury of historic truth. In the first chapter 
of Genesis, we read an account of our own origin, and of the birth of 
creation. But scarcely have we time to pause and contemplate the 
beauty and grandeur of the handiwork of the Supreme Architect, til] 
we are led by the inspired record to look upon one of the most 
melancholy scenes ever presented to the view of man. In the third 
chapter of Genesis, we are furnished with the history of the fall of man 
—the apostasy of the first pair from original purity and happiness. The 
Mosaic account of this event is substantially this: That man was placed 
in the garden of Eden to dress and to keep it. In this garden were two 
peculiar trees—the one called “the tree of life,’ and the other “the 
tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Of the fruit of the latter, Adam 
was commanded not to eat, and the command was enforced by the 
announcement of the penalty—‘“In the day thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die.” Through the temptation of the serpent, Eve, and, 
through her, Adam, were induced to disobey the command, by eating 
the fruit of that tree, in consequence of which they were expelled from 
the garden, and the sentence of death, together with other maledictions, 
was denounced against them. 

I, Jn turning our attention to this scriptural account of the Fall, we 
inquire, first, Is this a literal account of events that really took place, or 
is it merely an allegorical representation? Infidels, who reject the 
Bible, of course look upon it as nothing but a fictitious story; but that 
professed Christians should view this solemn record as a. painted alle- 
gory, is a matter of no little surprise; and yet some, at the same time 
that they express a reverence for the Bible, make thus free with its 
contents. 

That this history should be interpreted literally, we infer, first, from 
the fact that it is regularly connected with a continuous and plain nar- 
rative detail of facts. Now, to select from a regularly conducted nar- 
rative a particular portion as allegorical, when all the other parts in 
the connection are admitted to be plain narrative, is contrary to all the 


oh. ix,] THE FALL OF MAN. 104 


rules of interpretation. If we may make thus free with the third chap- 
ter of Genesis, why not the first, and deny the reality of the creation ? 
Why not make a similar disposition of the history of Noah, of Moses, 
or even of Christ? Indeed, if we are authorized to treat the plain his- 
toric record of the Bible thus unceremoniously, we can place little confi- 
dence in any thing it contains. 

But there is a second argument for the literal interpretation of the 
account under consideration. If we view it as an allegory, we must 
set aside the authority of the New Testament; for in several places it al- 
ludes to the history of the Fall as a real transaction. In Matt. xix. 4, 5, 
our Saviour says: “Have ye not read that he which made them at the 
beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall 
a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they 
twain shall be one flesh?” Here, although our Lord does not quote 
immediately from the history of the Fall, yet he quotes a portion of the 
same continuous narrative; consequently he must have viewed it as 
real history. In 2 Cor. xi. 3, St. Paul says: “ But I fear lest by any 
means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds 
should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Here the 
allusion is so plain, that we cannot resist the conviction that the apostle 
intended to refer to a real transaction. 

But there is another passage so positive and definite as to settle the 
question with all who will acknowledge the inspiration of St. Paul :— 
1 Tim. ii. 13, 14: “For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam 
was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgres- 
sion.” Thus do we perceive that we’are compelled to admit the literal 
history of the fatal lapse of man, as recorded in the third chapter of 
Genesis, or discard our confidence in the Bible. 

II. In the second place, we inquire concerning the propriety of the 
divine administration, as connected with the circumstances of the fall of 
man. 

1, It is asked, Could not the Almighty, who certainly foresaw the 
apostasy of man, have prevented it? And if so, how can we reconcile 
it with divine goodness that he did not thus interpose? I am persuaded 
that this difficulty has not only been tauntingly urged by the infidel, 
but it has presented itself to the mind of many a candid inquirer after 
truth ; therefore it merits some serious consideration. 

In the first place, that God foresaw the Fall, we firmly believe; for 
he seeth “the end from the beginning.” 

In the second place, that he could have prevented it, we freely admit; 
for God can do any thing which dees not imply an absurdity, and which 


106 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. PVF BP2 


is consistent with his own perfections. We do not suppose that Deity 
was necessarily compelled to create man originally. The fact that he 
did not perform this work till a few thousand years ago, is sufficient 
evidence that he might have suspended it even till now, had he seen 
proper. If, then, he was not compelled to create man at first, but acted 
with perfect freedom, it would follow that he might still continue to 
exercise the same freedom, and unmake what he had made, or so 
change it as to constitute it something entirely different. So far, then, 
as the simple question of potentiality is concerned, the Deity could have 
prevented the Fall. He could have prevented it by omitting to create 
man. He could have prevented it by making man a stock, or a stone, 
or any thing else, besides a moral agent. But that he could have 
prevented it, consistently with his own attributes, without destroying 
the moral agency of man, is what we believe never can be proved. 
Seeing, then, that the only way by which God could have rendered the 
apostasy of man impossible, was not to have made him a moral and 
accountable agent, the question then amounts to this: Was it better, 
upon the whole, that moral agents should be brought into being, or 
nou? 

Before the divine administration can be impeached, as improper or 
inconsistent with goodness, it must be shown either that it was improper 
to create moral agents, or that the possibility of transgressing is not 
essential to the character of a moral agent. That it was improper to 
create moral agents, is a position contradicted by the fact that God did 
create such beings. This must be admitted by all who acknowledge 
their own existence, and that they have been brought into being by a 
Creator, whether they believe the Bible or not. Therefore we are com 
pelled to admit that, in the judgment of God, who alone is infinitely 
wise and capable of surveying the whole ground, more good than evil 
would result from the creation of intelligent, accountable beings; and 
that therefore it was better, upon the whole, that such beings should he 
created. 

In the next place, that the possibility of apostasy is essential to the 
character of a moral and accountable agent, is easily shown in the fol- 
lowing manner: 1. A moral agent implies a capacity for performing 
moral action. 2. Moral action implies a law by which its character is 
determined. 3. A law forthe government of moral action must neces- 
sarily be such as may either be obeyed or disobeyed by the subject; 
otherwise there can be no moral quality, no virtue or vice, no praise or 
blame, attached to obedience or disobedience; and this would destroy 
the character xf the moral agent. Whus it is clear that the power to 


Ch. 1x.) THE FALL OF MAN. 107 


obey or disobey is essential to the character of a moral agent; conse. 
quently God could not have prevented the possibility of the apostasy 
and fall of man without destroying his moral agency. 

2. The nature of the prohibition made to Adam has been considered 
by some as a ground of serious complaint against the divine adminis- 
tration. That the fruit of one of the trees of paradise should be inter- 
dicted by the Almighty, has been represented as absurd, and treated 
with ridicule. This solemn transaction has been made the subject of 
many “a fool-born jest” by the captious and profane. It would be 
well for short-sighted and fallible creatures, before they launch forth 
with such presumptuous arrogance and audacious raillery, with much 
humility and honesty of heart, more carefully to examine so serious a 
matter. 

In reference to this prohibition, it may be observed that the objection 
is not that man was placed under a law—the propriety of this, all who 
acknowledge that he was constituted a moral agent must admit; but 
the ground of complaint is against the peculiar character of the law. 
“What harm could there be in eating an apple,” it is asked, “that 
our first parents should be placed under so strict and unreasonable a 
restraint?” 

To this we reply that we can see no just reason for complaint, 
because the prohibition was what has been termed, not a moral, but a 
positive precept. The chief difference in these is, that the reason 
of a positive precept is not seen by us, whereas, in a moral precept, 
we perceive, in the very nature of the command, something of its pro- 
priety. 

In reference to moral precepts, it must be admitted that the reasona- 
bleness of the duty is not in every case equally obvious. May we not 
therefore infer that, in positive precepts, a sufficient reason for them 
may exist in the mind of God, which, in consequence of the weakness 
of our understanding, we cannot perceive? That our minds do not per- 
ceive the reason upon which a command is founded, cannot possibly be 
an evidence that no such reason exists, with any who admit the finiteness 
of the human understanding. Therefore to object to the prohibition as 
unreasonable, merely because we do not perceive the reason upon which 
it is founded, is seen to be fallacious. 

Again, even were we to admit that there was no previous reason, 
in the nature of things, for the particular precept given to Adam, and 
that another precept might just as well have been substituted for it, how 
can we see any valid objection to the divine administration upon this 
supposition? Is not the ground of all obligation, whether connected 


108 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1. B. 2. 


with a positive or moral precept, founded upon the will of God? For 
instance, the duty of industry is said to be moral in its character, 
because we can perceive some propriety in it, even in the absence of a 
command, But is it not clear that our obligation to be industrious is 
founded upon the command of God? In the absence of the known will 
of God in the case, I might be led, from mere choice or policy, to the 
exercise of industry, but I could not feel that I was bound to be indus- 
trious, and that a failure would be a crime. Hence we conclude that, 
as obligation rests not on the nature of the duty itself, but on the fact 
that our Creator has commanded it, the obligation to obey is just as 
ereat in a positive as in a moral precept. 

In turning our attention to the law given to our first parents, so far 
from discovering any thing objectionable in the particular prohibition, 
we confess that it appears to us more reasonable and better adapted to 
the grand design for which it was given, than a moral precept could 
have been. It is evident that the law was given as a test of man’s 
fidelity and allegiance to God. He was created an intelligent being, 
and endued with free agency. As such, a law calculated to test his 
submission to God was perfectly suited to his condition, being designed 
to show forth, in the obedience of the creature, the supreme authority 
and glory of the Creator. 

The question for us to determine, therefore, is this: Was a positive 
precept, such as was given to man, calculated to test his obedience? It 
appears evident to us, that such a command as had nothing to influence 
its observance but the authority of God, was, of all that could have 
been given, the best test of obedience. Had the Almighty commanded 
Adam to speak the truth, or to be affectionate to his wife, his observ- 
ance of a moral precept of this kind could not have been a proof of his 
allegiance to his Maker, for the simple reason that the understanding, 
unimpaired by sin, might have discovered such propriety and fitness in 
the very nature of the precept as to lead to obedience merely for the 
sake of its advantages. But God designed that man should acknowl- 
edge the supreme authority of his Creator ; therefore he gave him a law 
affording no argument for its observance but the authority of God, that 
it might thus be evinced that if man kept the law, he did it for no other 
reason than because God had commanded it; thereby acknowledging the 
divine government and control under which he was placed. 

Avain, the propriety of this precept, when considered as a test of obe- 
dience, may be seen in its simplicity. A law upon which so much 
depended, should be such as could easily be understood and remem- 
bered. Had an extended system of intricate forms been laid down, the 


Sh. ix.) THE FALL OF MAN. 109 


offending subject might have pleaded as an excuse the difficu.ty of 
remembering or understanding every part of the command; but here 
there can be no plea of the sort—there is but one simple command: 
the fruit of one tree is interdicted, and that so specifically designated 
that there can be no mistake. 

Once more: had the command imposed a heavy burden upon man, 
the offending subject might have pleaded as a paliation the severity 
of the requisition; but here we see no difficult task imposed. It is only 
abstinence from one out of the many trees of Eden; and the very man- 
ner in which the command is issued seems strongly to urge obedience, 
by a direct allusion to the divine goodness intermingled therewith: 
“Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; bat of the tree of 
the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day 
that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.’ How appropriate this, 
as a test of obedience! It has nothing but the divine authority to sus- 
tain it. It imposes no oppressive burden; but, in its very presentation, 
is mingled with love. 

3. The circumstances of the temptation have been caricatured with 
no sparing hand by men who have appeared determined to amuse them- 
selves at all hazards. A little attention to this subject will be enough. 
we think, to satisfy the unprejudiced that there is no just ground here 
for arraigning the divine administration. 

Some have thought it strange that God should permit man to be 
tempted at all. But a temptation to fall, either internal or external, 
seems to be essential to his character as a probationer. When every 
inducement is on the side of obedience, the subject must partake of the 
character of a machine, and there can be no reward for obedience. 
Perhaps there was this difference between the apostasy of man and that 
of the fallen angels—the latter originated the temptation within their 
own nature, whilst the former was tempted from without. It is not 
essential from what source the temptation originates, but a temptation 
appears to be necessarily connected with a state of trial. Without it, 
“what proof can be given of firm allegiance?” As it is impossible for 
us to know that man would not have originated a temptation within his 
own nature, even if Satan had not been permitted to attack him, we 
cannot assail the divine administration as cruel for permitting that 
attack. Of this much we may be well assured—the temptation was 
not irresistible. God required obedience; and he gave ability for the 
same. ‘To have gone farther, would have destroyed the accountability 
of man, and deranged the principles of the divine government. 

Against the literal account of the temptation, it has been said that it 


110 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pitas ee 


is unreasonable to suppose that a “serpent,” or any “ beast of the field,” 
should be sufficiently malicious and sagacious to undertake and suc- 
ceed in the seduction of man. It is a sufficient reply to this to know 
that, according to the Scriptures, the prime actor in this temptation was 
Satan, a fallen spirit. This we learn from various allusions. In Rev. 
xii. 9, we read of “that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan.” And 
in evident allusion to the seduction of man, we read concerning the 
devil, in John viii. 44; “He was a murderer from the beginning, and 
abode not in the truth.” 

If an objection be made from the absurdity or impossibility of a ser- 
pent or beast of the field uttering articulate sounds, we reply, that 
although such creatures may not naturally possess this power, yet it is 
impossible for us to prove that God might not permit Satan to exercise 
it through them; and so the objection falls. 

Again, it has been objected that the serpent, of all animals, is the 
most inappropriate to be selected as the instrument of this seduction. 
To which we reply that we know but little with regard to what the 
serpent originally was; but, from what the Scriptures inform us, we 
have good reason to believe that he was the most appropriate animal 
that could have been selected. He was not a creeping reptile, but a 
“beast of the field,” and the most subtle among them. 

Upon this subject Mr. Watson says: “ We have no reason at all to 
suppose, as it is strangely done almost uniformly by commentators, that 
this animal had the serpentine form, in any mode or degree at all, 
before his transformation. That he was then degraded to a reptile to 
vo ‘upon his belly,’ imports, on the contrary, an entire alteration and 
loss of the original form—a form of which it is clear no idea can now 
be conceived.” 

We may conclude from what has been said, that as a temptation of 
some kind was necessary to test the fidelity of man, there is no just 
ground for cavil at the account of this matter, as recorded by Moses. 

4. The penalty annexed to the Adamic law has been made a ground 
of complaint, as being excessively rigorous, and entirely disproportion- 
ate to the offense. That we may understand this subject, it will be 
necessary to take into the account the true condition of man as an 
accountable being, the nature of the authority by which he was bound, 
and the true character of his offense. When these things are all duly 
considered, we think it will be apparent that the penalty of death, which 
has been referred to as so excessively severe, was truly appended to the 
law in mercy. 

First, then, man, in order that he might be a proper subject of moral 


Ch. ix.] THE FALL OF MAN. lil 


government, was made a rational, intelligent be‘ng, capable of under- 
standing his duty and the reasons thereof. He was also endued with 
the capacity of perceiving and feeling the influence of motive. Ina 
word, he had every attribute of a free moral agent. His duty was 
plainly prescribed. He was not left to feel his way amid the darkness 
of uncertainty or conjecture. Light flowed into his soul by a direct 
communication from God, with clearness and power, like the unob- 
structed rays of the sun. No dire necessity impelled him to transgress ; 
for he had every faculty and ability necessary to enable him to obey. 
He was created “sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.” Such 
was the condition in which he was placed, and such were the circum- 
stances by which he was rendered accountable for his actions. 

What, we inquire in the next place, was the nature of that authority 
by which he was bound, and to which he was held responsible? It was 
the authority of the infinite God, enforced by all the obligations of 
gratitude, as well as justice, truth, and holiness. An obligation thus 
high and sacred, and resting upon the authority of the infinite perfec- 
tions of God, could neither be relinquished nor compromitted. The 
honor of the eternal throne forbade it. 

With this view of the subject, we ask, what was the character of the 
offense of man? Surely it could not have been the trivial thing sup- 
posed by those who speak so flippantly of the mere circumstance of 
tasting an apple. The eating of the forbidden fruit was the external 
act of transgression; but the seat of the crime lay deep in the soul. 
There, where all had been holiness and love, every evil principle reigned 
in triumph—unbelief was there; treason, rebellion, enmity, pride, lust, 
murder—in a word, the root of every evil passion which Satan could 
instigate, or which man has ever felt, was contained in the principle 
which actuated man in the first transgression. The authority of God 
was here cast off; the word of God was contradicted; allegiance to 
Heaven was relinquished; and the claims of gratitude were entirely 
disregarded. How exceedingly defective must be the view of this sub- 
ject taken by those who represent the first sin as a venial impropriety 
—a slight aberration, of scarce sufficient magnitude to merit the notice 
of God! 

In view, then, of all these circumstances, can we complain that the 
penalty of death was annexed to the law? Is it an evidence of cruelty 
on the part of the Lawgiver? The whole history of the case, when 
properly understood, presents rather an evidence of the goodness of God. 
The object contemplated in the affixing of a penalty to a law, in all 
good governments, is not primarily the punishment of the subject, but 


112 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {F.i. B. 2. 


the prevention of crime. So in the command given to Adam: that he 
might be deterred from transgression, and thereby preserved in his 
pristine state of bliss, the penalty was annexed—* In the day thou eat- 
est thereof, thou shalt surely die.” If the prime object of the penalty 
was the prevention of crime, so also the severity of the penalty, if such 
it may be called, originated in the divine benevolence, which labored 
to make the inducements to obedience as strong as might be, without 
destroying the free agency and accountability of man. 

Thus have we contemplated the history and circumstances of perhaps 
the most solemn and deeply important event connected with the history 
of our race, except that greater work of redemption, providing for our 
recovery from the miseries of the Fall. The full import of the penalty 
of death, together with the relation sustained in the transaction of the 
Fall by Adam to his posterity, will be considered when we investigate 
the doctrine of human depravity, or the effects of the Fall. 

We now close this chapter by one observation in reference to the date 
of this melancholy event. It seems that sacred chronology has not 
been careful to gratify curiosity in this particular. How long the first 
pair maintained their integrity, and drank at the fountain of unmixed 
happiness, we know not; but it is probable that the time was short. 
The “fine gold” soon became “dim,” and the desolating curse soon fell, 
with its withering influence, upon the fair, and, till then, the smiling, 
face of nature. But while we cast a mournful retrospect upon the 
wide-spread ruin entailed upon his race by the first Adam, we may, 
through the second Adam, hope to gain a habitation in “the new 
heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness ” 


Oh. 1x. ] 


2. 


THE FALL OF MAN. 


113 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IX. 


Quesrion 1. In what place is the history | 13. Why does it appear that a positive 


of the fall of man recorded ? 
What is the substance of the Mosaic 
account of the transaction ? 


. Is this to be understood literally or 


allegorically ? 

What two facts are given in evi- 
dence of the literal interpreta- 
tion? 

Was it possible for God to have pre- 
vented the Fall? 


. How can we reconcile it with his 


goodness that he did not prevent 
it? 


. Could he have prevented its possi- 


bility without destroying the free 
agency of man? 


. How may it be shown that the pos- 


sibility of apostasy is essential to 
the character of a moral agent? 


. What objection has been made to 


the divine administration from the 
nature of the prohibition? 


. What is the distinction between a 


moral and a positive precept? 


. May we certainly know that a posi- 


twe precept is not founded on rea- 
son? 


. Upon what is our obligation to obey 


founded ? 
g 


14 


15. 


16. 


precept is the best test of obedi- 
ence? 

How may the propriety of the law 
given to Adam as.a test of obedi- 
ence be argued from its simplicity ? 

Wherein does it apppear that it waa 
presented in mercy ? 

How could God, consistently witb 
his mercy, permit man to be tempt- 
ed? 


. What was probably the difference 


between the temptation of man 
and that of the fallen angels? 


. What was the prime agent in the 


seduction of man? 


. Could the serpent have uttered ar- 


ticulate sounds? What was prob- 
ably the original form of the ser- 
pent? 


20. What objection has been raised in 


reference to the penalty of the law? 


. How does it appear that the first sin 


was not a trivial offense? 


2. What was the prime object in affix- 


ing the penalty to the law? 


23. Can you fix the precise date of the 


Fall? 


. Is it probable that Adam continue? 


long in his pristine state? 


114 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. Ba 


CHAFTER X. 


THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN—PENALTY OF THE LAW CON. 
SIDERED. 


Havin contemplated, in the preceding chapter, the circumstances 
connected with the history of the fall of man, we come now to consider 
its effects. 

This is one of the most important subjects in theology. It presents 
the basis on which is founded the whole remedial scheme of the gos- 
pel; for if the lapsed state of man be denied, his redemption must be 
superfluous. An erroneous view of the effects of the Fall, from the very 
nature of the subject, would be likely to extend itself throughout the 
whole gospel system. Hence, the principal heresies with which the 
Church in all ages has been infested, have originated in improper views 
upon this subject. 

In divinity, as in all science, to start right is of vast importance ; 
therefore peculiar care should be exercised in endeavoring to ascertain 
correctly the consequences of the first apostasy of man, from which evi- 
dently springs the necessity of redemption. 

In approaching this important subject, that which demands our 
investigation is | 

I. The nature of the penalty attached to the Adamic lao. 

Upon this subject a great diversity of opi..on has existed. The 
first, and perhaps the most defective theory of all that we shall notice, 
is that which has been attributed to Pelagius, a Briton, who flourished 
about the commencement of the fifth century. 

The same opinion was adopted by Socinus of the sixteenth century ; 
and, with little variation, is held by Socinians generally of the present day. 

According to this theory, death, the penalty of the law, is not to be 
understood, in the full and proper sense, as implying either death tem- 
poral, spiritual, or eternal; but is rather to be understood figuratively, 
as implying a state of exposure to the divine displeasure, expulsion 
from paradise, and a subjection to ills and inconveniences such as should 
make the transgressor feel the evil of his sin, and might serve as a dis- 
tiplinary correction, to prevent a subsequent departure from duty: but 


Ch. x.] THE EFFECTS OF TME FALL OF MAN. 115 


that the body of Adam, being created naturally mortal, would have 
died, whether he had sinned or not; and that his soul did not lose the 
divine image and favor, though it became to some extent injured in its 
faculties. 

A second opinion is, that the death affixed as the penalty of the law 
extended to both soul and body, and implied complete annihilation. 

A third theory is, that the death threatened related exclusively to 
the body, and, consequently, that the soul is just as pure, until defiled 
by actual transgression, as the soul of Adam in paradise. This was the 
notion of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich. 

A fourth view of the subject is, that the threatened penalty implied 
spiritual death only, or the loss of the divine image from the soul; and 
that the death of the body is only an after consequence, resulting not 
directly from sin, but from a merciful interposition, by which man was 
denied access to the tree of life. 

That none of these views presents the true scriptural account of this 
subject, we hope to render apparent by the establishment of the follow- 
ing proposition, viz., that the death threatened as the penalty of the Adamic 
law included death temporal, spiritual, and eternal. 

1. Our first argument upon this subject is founded upon the scriptural 
account containing the record of the original threatening, and of the curse 
subsequently denounced. 

The language of the penalty is, “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die.” The language of the curse denounced upon Adam, 
after his transgression, is this: “ Because thou hast hearkened unto the 
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, 
saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in 
sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and 
thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the 
field: in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return 
nnto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and 
unto dust shalt thou return.” 

The language here quoted, in which the curse is denounced upon 
Adam immediately subsequent to the Fall, must be understood, to some 
extent at least, as a comment upon the threatened penalty. This we 
may clearly infer from the preface to the curse, “Because thou hast 
hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,” ete. Here we are plainly 
taught that the curse denounced is a direct consequence of the trans- 
gression; and if so, it must be embraced in the penalty; for nothing 
but the penalty can result directly and necessarily from the transgres- 
sion. To suppose that the entire malediction, as here specified, was not 


116 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. 2. 


embraced in the previous threatening, would be to charge the Almighty 
with unnecessary severity, for, in strict justice, nothing could have been 
required more than the execution of the penalty; nor could the trans- 
gression of the law be thus directly specified, as the cause of this 
curse, upon any supposition, but that the previously declared penalty 
demanded it. We may not only infer that this entire malediction was 
embraced in the penalty, but also that, so far as the language extends, 
it is a comment upon the penalty itself. If the above be admitted as 
true, we have here a positive procf that the sorrows and afflictions of 
life, together with the final disso'ution of the body, were embraced in 
the penalty. It is here declared that the very earth is cursed for the 
sake of man, to whom it had been given for an inheritance; that he 
shall lead a life of toil and sorrow, and that “to dust shall he return ;” 
and all this because of his sin. Most evidently, then must the death 
of the body have been included in the penalty. 

But again, we find here, also, very conclusive proor, of an indirect 
and inferential kind, that spiritual death is also included. By this 
death is understood the loss of the divine image and favor. Physical 
evil, according to the whole tenor of the Scriptures and the nature of 
the divine government, is understood to be the result of moral evil. 
Hence, to suppose that man is involved in the dreadful miseries here 
denounced, and yet not the subject of such a moral defection as to 
deprive him of the immaculate image and favor of God, is an absurdity 
which, we think, can only be adopted by persons of easy faith. 

2. Our next proof that the original penalty embraced death, cor. 
poreal, spiritual, and eternal, is founded upon the nature of man to whom 
the law was given. 

The plain, common-sense interpretation of Scripture, where there is 
nothing in the context to oppose it, is always the best. Let any honest 
inquirer after truth, who has no favorite theory to sustain, take up his 
Bible, and read, “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” 
and endeavor to learn, from the nature of the person addressed, the 
character of the death specified, and what must be his conclusion? 
The Jaw was here given, not to the body of man, previously to its union 
with the soul, but to man in his compound character, after his two 
natures had been united, so as to constitute but one person; therefore 
the penalty is not denounced against the body alone, but against man 
in his entire nature. It was not said, “In the day thou eatest thereof” 
thy body “shall die,” nor thy soul “shall die;” but “thou”—mea sing 
Adam, a compound being, consisting of sow! and body—“thou,” in ty 
entire nature, “shalt die.” 


Ch. x.] THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL UF MAN. U7 


Again, if either the soul or body had been entirely alone ..1 /he offense, 
there might be more plausibility in the supposition that it would be 
alone in the penalty; but there was a sin of the soul resulting in a 
bodily act of transgression; therefore the natural inference is, that as 
both partook of the offense, both must be involved in the penalty. 
Once more: as eternal death is only a perpetuity of the sentence of 
death denounced against man, it would follow as a natural consequence 
that the death must be eternal unless removed; but the penalty made 
no provision for its own destruction—consequently it must have included 
eternal death. Thus have we seen that, from the very nature of map 
to whom the Jaw was given, we may reasonably infer that the penalty 
denounced against him was death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal. 

3. In the next place, we appeal to the express declaration of the word 
of God, in various passages, in confirmation of the view we have taken 
of the import of the penalty under consideration. To an unprejudiced 
mind, one would think that the very phraseology of the penalty itself 
were enough. 

Upon this subject we have the following forcible remarks from Dr 
John Dick, in his Lectures: “It may be sufficient, in the present case, tc 
repeat the words of God to Adam, without quoting other passages in 
confirmation of their meaning: ‘In the day thou eatest thereof thou 
shalt surely die.’ Can any thing be plainer than that if he did not eat 
he should not die? Can we suppose that God threatened, as a con- 
sequence of transgression, what would take place in the course of 
nature? that Adam was deterred from disobedience by the annuncia- 
tion of an event which would befall him, although he performed his 
duty? If men will make themselves ridiculous by venting opinions 
stamped with folly and absurdity, let them beware of exposing their 
Maker to contempt.” 

Upon the same subject, Mr. Watson, in his Institutes, uses the follow- 
ing pertinent observations: “The death threatened to Adam we con- 
clude, therefore, to have extended to the soul of man as well as to his 
body, though not in the sense of annihilation; but for the confirmation 
of this, it is necessary to refer more particularly to the language of 
Scripture, which is its own best interpreter, and it will be seen that the 
opinion of thuse divines who include in the penalty attached to the first 
offense the very ‘fullness of death,’ as it has been justly termed—death, 
bodily, spiritual, and eternal—is not to be puffed away by sarcasm, but 
stands firm on inspired testimony.” 

Tf, as we have seen, death is the penalty of the law given to Adam, is 
it not manifest that we exercise a freedom with the werd of God for 


118 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.2 


which we have no license, if we restrict the import of death within nat 
rower limits than are assigned to it in the Scriptures themselves? In 
Rom. vi. 23, St. Paul declares, “For the wages of sin is death.” This 
is presented as a broad principle of truth—a Scripture axiom of uni- 
versal application. Here is no particular kind of death specified, but 
the term death is used in a general and ‘unlimited sense; then, wher- 
ever we find death in any shape or form, or of any kind, we here have. 
the inspired testimony that it is the “wages of sin.” We have only 
then to turn to the Holy Oracles still farther, and inquire in what sense 
the term death is there used; and we have the plainest testimony that 
in the same sense it is “the wages of sin;” or, in other words, results 
from sin as its penalty. The dissolution of the body is so frequently 
spoken of as death, that quotations would perhaps be superfluous. We, 
however, present one—1 Cor. xv. 22: “For as in Adam all die, even 
so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Here the apostle is discoursing 
especially on the subject of the dissolution of the body, and its resur- 
rection, and uses the term death, and represents it as taking place “in 
Adam,” which, if it does not imply that death resulted penally from 
the first transgression, can have no intelligible meaning whatever. 

The fifth chapter to the Romans furnishes an ample comment on the 
penalty of the Adamic law. We find there these words: “ Wherefore, as by 
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed 
upon all men, for that all have sinned. But not as the offense, so also 
is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much 
more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, 
Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. For if by one man’s offense 
death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of 
erace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus 
Christ.” Here we may plant ourselves on the testimony of the apostle, 
and ask, Can language be more specific? can proof be more positive? 
Two points are here established beyond the possibility of dispute: first, 
that death has directly resulted from the transgression of Adam; second, 
that this death is opposed to the life which is bestowed through Christ. 
Christ is the fountain of life in the same sense in which Adam is the 
source of death. We have, therefore, only to ask in what sense is 
Christ the source of life. Is he not the source of life, bodily, spiritual, 
and eternal? None can deny it without giving the lie to the apostle. 
And if so, it is equally clear that death in all these senses is the result, 
the penal result, of Adam’s sin. 

But still it nay be inquired, Have we scriptural authority for applying 
the term death to the loss of the divine image from the soul, and the 


Ch. x.| THE EFFECTS cF TIE FALL OF MAN. 119 


eternal separation of both soul and body from God? In Eph. ii. 1, we 
read: “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and 
sins.” Here is only one of the many places in which spiritual death in 
spoken of. This is a moral destitution, or a separation of the soul from 
the life and love of God; and it is here spoken of as opposed to the 
quickening influence of Christ. We saw, in the fifth chapter to the 
Romans, that the death counteracted by Christ was the result of Adam’s 
sin; hence it will follow that the spiritual death here referred to was 
included in the penalty under consideration. 

In reference to eternal death, Mr. Watson makes the following 
remarks: “But the highest sense of the term ‘death,’ in Scripture, is 
the punishment of the soul in a future state, both by a loss of happi- 
ness and separation from God, and also by a positive infliction of 
divine wrath. Now, this is stated not as peculiar to any dispensation 
of religion, but as common to all—as the penalty of the transgression 
of the law of God in every degree. ‘Sin is the transgression of the law;’ 
this is its definition. ‘The wages of sin is death;’ this is its penalty. 
Here we have no mention made of any particular sin, as rendering the 
transgressor liable to this penalty, nor of any particular circumstance 
under which sin may be committed, as calling forth that fatal expres- 
sion of the divine displeasure; but of sin itself generally—of traas- 
gression of the divine law in every form and degree, it is affirmed, 
‘The wages of sin is death. ‘This is, therefore, to be considered as an 
axiom in the jurisprudence of Heaven. ‘Sin,’ says St. James, with like 
absolute and unqualified manner, ‘when it is finished, bringeth forth 
death; nor have we the least intimation given in Scripture that any 
sin whatever is exempted from this penalty, or that some sins are pun- 
‘shed in this life only, and others in the life to come. The degree of 
punishment will be varied by the offense; but death is the penalty 
attached to all sin, unless it is averted by pardon, which itself supposes 
that in the law the penalty has been incurred. What was there then 
in the case of Adam to take him out of this rule? His act was a 
transgression of the law, and therefore sin; as sin, its wages was ‘death,’ 
which in Scripture, we have seen, means, in its highest sense, future 
punishment.” 

According, therefore, to the testimony of Scripture, we conclude that 
the penalty of the Adamic law was death, temporal, spiritual, and 
eternal. 

To suppose that this is to be understood in the sense of annihilation, 
would be contrary to the Scriptures, as well as every testimony in refer. 
ence to death in any sense of the term. Death never means annihila 


120 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [p.i. B. 2 


tion. We know not that any created substance ever has been, or ever 
will be, annihilated. The death of the body is only a separation of the 
soul from it, resulting in a decomposition of its substance; but not a 
particle of matter is annihilated. Therefore, to speak of eternal death 
as the annihilation of soul and body, is a bare assumption, without the 
least shadow of testimony, either from reason, observation, or Scripture, 
to sustain it. 

II. We examine, in the second place, the peculiar relation sustained 
by Adam to his posterity in the transaction of the Fall. 

The different opinions entertained on this subject may be reduced to 
three. 

1. Pelagians and Socinians maintain that Adam acted for himself 
alone, and that his posterity have sustained no injury by his fall, either 
in their physical or moral constitution; but that they are born as holy 
as he was in paradise, and that the death of the body would have been 
inevitable, even if Adam had not sinned. 

2. Another theory, which has had its advocates, is, that Adam was a 
kind of natural representative of his posterity; so that the effects of his 
fall, to some extent, are visited upon his posterity, not as a penal inflic- 
tion for guilt attributed to them, but as a natural consequence, in the 
same sense in which children are compelled to suffer poverty or disgrace, 
by the profligacy or crimes of their iramediate parent, without involving 
them, in any sense, in the guilt on account of which they suffer. This 
was the opinion of Dr. Whitby and several divines of the Established 
Church of England, who, to say the least, leaned too much toward 
Pelagianism. 

3. A third, and, as we believe, the most rational and scriptural view 
of the subject is, that Adam. in the transaction of the fall, was the fed- 
eral head and proper legal representative of his posterity, insomuch 
that they fell in him as truly, in the view of the law, as he fell himself; 
and that the consequences of the first sin are visited upon them, as a 
penal infliction, for the guilt of Adam imputed to them. That such 
was the relation of Adam to his posterity, we think can be satisfactorily 
shown. 

The federative character of Adam is so clearly implied in the first 
blessing pronounced upon man, that it would be exceedingly difficult, 
without its admission, to place upon the passage a consistent interpreta- 
tion. Gen. i. 28: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and 
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the 
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Here, 


Ch. x.| THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL MAN. 121 


observe, the command is, to “replenish the earth,” and to “have 
dominion over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Now, 
if all this cannot be applied to the original pair, but must embrace 
their posterity, then it will follow that, as their posterity are not here 
named, they were included in Adam, their legal head and representa- 
tive, through whom this blessing was pronounced upon them as really 
as it was upon Adam himself. 

In 1 Cor. xv. 45, we read: “The first man Adam was made a living 
soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” Here we see Christ 
and Adam so plainly contrasted that the very name Adam is given 
also to Christ. If this is not designed to teach us that Adam, like 
Christ, was a public character, what can the language import? The 
apostle, in this chapter, was contrasting death and its attendant evils, 
which came by Adam, with life and its attendant blessings, which came 
by Christ. In accordance with which, in the 22d verse, we read: “ For 
as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Now, 
if Christ was a federal representative through whom the blessing of life 
is communicated, even so was Adam a federal head through whom 
death is communicated. 

In the fifth chapter to the Romans, the apostle considers the subject 
at large, and contrasts the evils entailed upon his posterity by Adam 
with the benefits they derive from Christ. From the apostle’s argu- 
ment, it is clear that Adam was as much a public representative in 
the transgression as Christ was in the righteousness of the atonement. 
Unless we admit that Adam was the federal head of mankind, how 
can they be constituted sinners by his offense? Death, being “the wages 
of sin,” could not be inflicted on all mankind unless they had sinned, 
either personally, or by their representative. But if we deny that 
Adam was the representative of his posterity in the eye of the law, the 
law could never treat them as sinners. But we see death passing “upon 
all,” as the apostle says, “for that all have sinned.” Here, observe, the 
argument is that all upon whom death passes have sinned; but death 
passes upon many (infants) who have not sinned personally, or “after 
the similitude of Adam’s transgression;” then they must have sinned 
in Adam, and if so, he must have been, in the eye of the law, their fed- 
eral head. 

It has already been proved that death is the penalty of the law, or, 
in other words, “the wages of sin.” If so, to suppose that death merely 
results indirectly upon the posterity of Adam as a natural consequence, 
and not as a direct penalty, must be an erroneous view of the subject, 
vnsustained by reason or Scripture. Indeed, to deny that Adam in the 


122 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pi Ba 


first transgression was a public representative of his race, would involve 
us at once in a train of inextricable difficulties. How could we recon- 
cile it with the justice of God, that all mankind should be involved 
with Adam in the curse, unless they were represented by him in the 
transgression? Will the justice of God punish the perfectly innocent? 
Can the penalty of a holy law fall with all its weight upon those who, 
in no sense of the word, are viewed in the light of transgressors? 

We think it must be obvious, from what has been said, that the only 
scriptural and consistent view of the subject is, to consider Adam in 
his state of trial as the federal head of all mankind. In him they 
sinned; in him they fell; and with him they suffer the penalty of a 
violated law. All difficulty which this arrangement might present, in 
view of the mercy of God, vanishes as the remedial scheme opens to 
view. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER X. 


Question 1. From what does the impor- | 10. What scriptures are quoted, and 


tance of a right understanding of how are they shown to prove the 
this subject appear ? point? 

2. What is the Pelagian and Socinian | 11. What different views have been en- 
view of the import of the penalty tertained with regard to the rela- 
of the Adamic law? tion sustained by Adam to his 

3. What is the second opinion specified? posterity? 

4. What is the third theory, mentioned | 12. What is the correct view of this 
as advocated by Dr. Taylor? subject? 


6. What is the fourth theory mentioned? | 13. By what proofs is it sustained? 
6. What is said to be the scriptural view 14. In what difficulty would a denial of 


of the subject? this doctrine involve us? 
7 What is the first argument presented? 15. In what way may all the seeming 
8. Upon what is the second argument difficulties connected with the true 
founded? doctrine upon this subject be re 
b To what is the appeal made in the moved? 


third place? 


Wh. mi] THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 123 


CHAPTER XI. 


fHE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN—DEPRAVITY—THE DOCTRINE 
DEFINED AND PROVED. 


In the preceding chapter we endeavored to prove, first, that the pen- 
alty attached to the Adamic law embraced death, temporal, spiritual, 
and eternal; and secondly, that Adam, in the transaction of the Fall, 
was the federal head and public representative of his posterity. The 
bearing these points have on the discussion of the effects of the Fall is 
so direct and important that we have deemed it necessary first to invite 
special attention to them. 

The subject which we propose discussing in the present chapter is, 
the effects of the Fall upon the moral state of Adam’s posterity; or, in 
other words, the doctrine of human depravity. 

We will first wlustrate what we mean by this doctrine, and then exam- 
ine the evidence by which it is sustained. Some have denied the native 
depravity of human nature altogether. 

I. Human Depravity Derinep. Pelagians, Socinians, and others 
of kindred sentiments, have represented the human soul, at its first en- 
trance on the stage of life, as being pure and spotless as an angel, or as 
Adam when first he proceeded from the hand of his Maker. 

Others have contended that all men have suffered to some extent, in 
their moral powers, by Adam’s sin; but that there has not resulted a_ 
total loss of all good, but merely a greater liability to go astray, requir- 
ing a greater degree of watchfulness to retain the degree of good of 
which we are by nature possessed. 

The first theory is a total denial of depravity by nature; the second 
denies it in part. But that neither opinion is sustained by Scripture or 
reason, we hope to make appear in the course of this chapter. 

The true doctrine upon this subject, which we shall endeavor to sus- 
tain by evidence, is this: that all mankind are by nature so depraved 
as to be totally destitute of spiritual good, and inclined only to evil con- 
tinually. 

This doctrine is thus expressed in the seventh Article of Religion, 
as set forth in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church 


124 » ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 2 


“Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians 
do vainly talk,) but it is the corruption of the nature of every man 
that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is 
very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined 
to evil, and that continually.” 

It may be inquired whether, according to the preceding presentation, 
we may properly understand that man by nature is totally depraved. 
To this question we reply in the affirmative. Although some, who 
have been generally reputed orthodox, have hesitated to adopt the 
phrase total depravity, yet we think that, when properly defined, it ex- 
presses clearly and forcibly the Scripture doctrine upon this subject ; 
and, if so, to object to its use merely because the term is not in 
the Scriptures, though the sense it implies is found there, is perfectly 
puerile. 

Those who have opposed the doctrine of total depravity, have gene- 
rally presented a distorted view of the subject, quite different from that 
for which its advocates have contended. They have represented total 
depravity as implying depravity in the greatest possible degree, in 
every possible sense. Thus they have argued that if all men are 
totally depraved, none, even by practice, can be worse than others, and 
none can ever become worse than they already are. Then they have 
appealed to the evidence of Scripture and facts, to show that some are 
more wicked and depraved than others; and that the wicked may 
“wax worse and worse.” This they have considered a full refutation 
of the doctrine of total depravity; and they have boldly raised the 
shout of victory, as though the whole system they opposed had been 
completely demolished; whereas they have only been playing their 
engines upon a fabric of theix own invention, leaving the doctrine, in 
the sense for which its advocates contend, undisturbed by their argu- 
ments. 

No sensible advocate of the doctrine of total depravity ever contended 
that all men are personally wicked in the same degree, or that bad men 
may not still become worse ; nor can such inference be fairly made from 
a correct representation of the doctrine. Were it contended that all 
men are by nature depraved to the greatest possible degree, in every 
possible sense, and that such must be their personal character, till 
changed by converting grace, such a consequence might with more 
plausibility be deduced. 

The task, however, may devolve upon us to show how the doc- 
trine of total depravity can be understood so as not to involve the 
above consequences. This, we think, can easily be done to the satis- 


th. xi.) THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 126 


faction of the unbiased mind. Depravity may be total in more senses 
than one. 

1. First, it may be total, because tt eatends to all the powers and fucul- 
ties of the soul; so that every part of the moral constitution is deranged 
and tainted by iniquity and pollution. 

Not only the judgment, but the memory, the conscience, the affections, 
and all the moral powers of our nature, are depraved and polluted by 
sin. Now, can it be proved that total depravity, in this sense, involves 
the consequences above specified? Surely not. Does it necessarily 
follow that if all men are by nature thus depraved, none can be person- 
ally worse than others, or become worse than they now are? Most cer- 
tainly it does not. 

2. Secondly, depravity may be total, because it implies the absence or 
privation of all positive good. 

That this is one sense in which depravity is understood to be total by 
the advocates of the doctrine, we see from the eighth Article of Relig- 
ion in the Methodist Discipline: “The condition of man after the fall 
of Adam is such that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own 
natural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God; wherefore 
we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, 
without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a 
good will, and working with us when we have that good will.” 

This implies a total loss, by the Fall, of all spiritual good; or, in 
other words, a complete and total erasure of the divine image from the 
soul. But does it follow from this that all men are so bad that they 
can in no sense become worse? Surely not. All may by nature be 
totally depraved in this sense of the word, and yet some may be worse 
in their personal character than others, and may still “ wax worse and 
worse” themselves. 

3. Again, depravity may be total, because the entire capacity and pow. 
ers of the soul, apart from grace, are filled, and continually employed, 
with evil. 

That this is one sense in which the doctrine is understood, may be 
seen by reference to the seventh Article of Religion already quoted 
from the Methodist Discipline: “Man is very far gone from original 
righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continu- 
ally.” Surely it does not follow from this that there can be no degrees 
in wickedness. May not the capacity and powers of the soul enlarge 
and gain strength by the practice of sin? and, if so, may they not, in 
the same proportion, contain and perform a greater degree of moral 
evil, and yet all the while be filled and employed with evil—* only 


126 HLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi B® 


evil, aud that continually”? ‘Thus we perceive that there are various 
important senses in which depravity may be understood to be total, 
and yet not be so understood as to exclude the possibility of degrees in 
wickedness. 

(1) The apparent difficulty in reconciling the doctrine of total deprav- 
ity with the admitted fact that there are degrees in wickedness, results, 
perhaps, entirely from overlooking the influence of divine grace upon 
personal character. 

According to Scripture, the “true light lighteth every man that com 
eth into the world;” so that none are left destitute of at least a degree 
of saving grace, shining upon the benighted and polluted powers of 
their souls. This grace is designed to counteract the influence of the 
Fall; and if some are not so deeply depraved as others in their per- 
sonal character, it is not because they are better by nature, but because 
they have, to some extent, been brought under the influence of divine 
grace, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. If the wicked “wax 
worse and worse,” it is because they more and more resist, and thereby 
remove themselves from the salutary influence of this enlightening and 
preventing grace. 

Before any valid objection to the doctrine for which we have con- 
tended can be founded upon the degrees in the personal character of the 
wicked, it must be proved that this diversity results neither in whole 
nor in part from the agency of divine grace, in connection with the 
education, moral conduct, and agency of men, in rejecting or yielding 
to the gracious influence imparted, but that it is to be attributed exclu- 
sively to an original and native difference in the moral powers and char- 
acter, as received by descent from our common progenitor. For this we 
presume none will contend; hence the objection under review cannot 
be sustained. The native moral character of man, and that character 
which individuals may sustain after having passed the line of account- 
ability, and acquired an almost endless diversity in the modification of 
original character, accordingly as they have yielded to or resisted the 
influence of divine grace, are entirely distinct things. 

To argue, therefore, against the doctrine of the native total depravity 
of man, from the degrees in character which men personally acquire, is 
obviously fallacious. 

(2) Again, to suppose, as the opponents of this doctrine are in the habit 
of contending, that total depravity implies the possession and exercise 
of every possible evil in the highest possible degree, is self-contradictory 
and absurd. 

This the very nature of the subject, when properly understood, wil] 


Ch. xi.] THE EFFECYS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 127 


clearly evince. There are some evil principles so diametrically opposed 
to each other in their nature, that the one will necessarily work the 
destruction of the other. Thus, avarice may destroy licentiousness 
and prodigality, and vice versa. Excessive ambition cannot consist 
with indolence, ete. Now, to suppose that the same individuals shall 
be characterized by every evil in the highest possible degree, at the 
same time, is to suppose what is impossible in the nature of things, and 
what the doctrine of total depravity, as above defined, does not require. 
When we say that all men are by nature totally depraved, we do not 
mean that they are depraved in the greatest possible degree, and in 
every possible sense, so that none can become practically worse than 
they now are. But we mean, 1. That all the powers and faculties of 
the soul are depraved. 2. That there is a privation of all spiritual 
good. 3. That the entire capacity and powers of the soul are filled and 
continually employed with evil; and that all the good belonging to per- 
sonal character has been superinduced by grace. This we conceive to 
be the scriptural and correct view of the subject. 

Let the impugners of this doctrine first inform themselves correctly in 
reference to its proper import, and then, if Scripture and reason are on 
their side, let them explode it as a silly fable, or sickly relic of the 
dark ages; but if this cannot be fairly accomplished, let not an impor- 
tant and sacred truth “be puffed away by sarcasm,” but let it rest firm 
upon the basis of Scripture testimony, corroborated as it is by impor. 
tant and indubitable facts, connected with the character and _ history 
of man. 

II. Proor or THE Docrrinre Exutpitep. Having endeavored, to 
some extent at least, to define the native depravity of man, as held by 
the great body of orthodox Christians, we proceed, in the next place, to 
the examination of the evidences by which it is sustained. Upon a 
subject of so great importance, as we might reasonably be led to hope, 
we shall find the evidence abundant and conclusive. 

1. Our first argument upon this subject is founded upon the truth of 
two positions, already established in the preceding chapter: first, that 
the penalty of the Adamic law included death, temporal, spiritual, and 
eternal; secondly, that in this transaction, Adam was the federal head 
and representative of his posterity. 

Now, if the above relationship existed between Adam and his poster- 
ity, it must necessarily follow that all the penal consequences of the 
first sin legally fall upon all mankind. In Adam all mankind were 
represented. Our common nature was seminally in him, and with him 
identified in the offense. 


128 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B. 2 


As the acorn contains within its limited compass the substance, germ, 
or stamina of vegetable life, from which proceeds, without any addi- 
tional exercise of creative power in the proper sense, the stately oak, 
with its numerous branches; even so was Adam our federal head, as it 
regards our natural existence. In him we were seminally created, and 
from him have we all proceeded, as naturally as the branch from the 
oak, or the oak from the acorn. As the very life of the tree is depend- 
ent on the disposition made of the acorn, so the very existence of his 
posterity depended on the preservation of Adam, Had he been anni- 
hilated the moment he transgressed, the multiplied millions of his poster- 
ity would have perished with him, From their state of seminal existence 
they would instantly have sunk back into nonentity, and never could 
have realized a state of conscious being. As we thus see plainly that, 
according to the very nature of things, he was the natural head of all 
our race, it will not appear unreasonable—nay, it appears almost to 
follow of necessity—that he should be constituted our federal head, in 
view of the law under which he was placed. As such, by his one 
offense, he “brought death into the world, and all our woe.” What- 
ever the penalty attached to the law may have been, he incurred it as 
well for his posterity as for himself. 

On this point the inquiry has been instituted, whether the posterity 
of Adam stand chargeable to the full extent with his personal obliquity, 
and whether we are to be viewed as having been guilty of actual trans- 
gression, in the strongest sense of the word. In reference to this 
intricate point, it may be difficult to use expressions which may not be 
understood to convey ideas variant from the true representation of 
Scripture. We may, however, we think, say with safety, that neither 
the holy law nor its infinite Author can look upon things differently 
from their true character. God must look upon sin as sin, and upon 
righteousness as righteousness, wherever they are found. It would there 
fore follow, that the posterity of Adam, having never personally trans- 
gressed, cannot be viewed as personally guilty. The personal act of 
Adam cannot be imputed to them as their personal act. It never was 
theirs personally, nor can it by any fiction of law be so considered. As 
Dr. Watts has remarked: “Sin is taken either for an act of disobedience 
to a law, or for the legal result of such an act—that is, the guilt or lia- 
bleness to punishment.” Now, is it not clear that the guilt and full 
penalty of Adam’s sin may be justly charged upon his posterity with 


A nation or community may be justly chargeable with all the conse 
quences of the act of their acknowledged head and legal representative 


Un. KL} THE BFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 12$ 


as fully as though they had done the same thing personally ; even so if, 
as we have seen, Adam was the legal head and representative of his 
posterity, they are justly chargeable with all the consequences of his 
offense, notwithstanding his sin cannot be viewed or charged upon them 
as their personal act. It is only theirs through their representative. 
The guilt and penalty necessarily resulting therefrom are, in the view 
of the law, justly imputed to and incurred by them. This is the scrip 
tural view of the subject, and necessarily results from the relationship 
of federal head, which we have seen Adam sustained to al] mankind. 
Unless he had sustained this relation to his posterity, his guilt could 
in no sense of the word have been imputed to them, without the most 
flagrant outrage upon the principles of justice; and unless his guilt had 
been imputed to them, it is impossible to justify the divine administra- 
tion in visiting upon them the dreadful penalty. These three points, 
then, are so intimately interwoven in the nature of the divine govern: 
ment, that they necessarily hang together. Admit that Adam was our 
federal head, and our guilt and subjection to the penalty of death nec- 
essarily follow as legal consequences. Or, if we admit that we are 
involved in the penalty of death, this will necessarily presuppose our 
guilt; and if we admit our guilt, this will necessarily presuppose the 
above-mentioned relationship to Adam, as the only possible way of 
accounting for it. 

But it may, perhaps, be asked, What connection has all this with the 
doctrine of the native total depravity of all mankind? To which we are 
now ready to reply that the connection is direct ; and the doctrine is a 
necessary and irresistible inference from the principles above presented. 
If all mankind are involved in the penalty attached to the Adamic law, 
then it must follow either that they are totally depraved, or that total 
depravity was not necessarily connected with that penalty. 

That spiritual death, or the loss of the, divine image from the soul, 
(which are but other words for total depravity,) was included in that 
penalty, has already been shown in the preceding chapter. The argu- 
ment, then, amounts to demonstration, that all mankind are by nature 
in a state of moral pollution, properly expressed by the phrase total 
depravity. As we have seen, death, in the fullness thereof, was the pen- 
alty of the law. “The wages of sin is death.” “ By, one man sin 
entered into the world, and death by sin.” Now, if all mankind are 
not involved in the penalty, we must flatly deny the word of God, which 
plainly and repeatedly represents death, in every sense of the word, as 
a penal infliction—a judicial sentence pronounced upon the guilty, as 
a just purishment for sin. 

9 


180 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Ps. B® 


Not only so, but it will devolve upon us to account for death, as we 
bee it. in the world, in some other way. And how, we may ask, is this 
possible? The Scriptures say, “Death came by sin ;” and that, too, the 
“sin of one man.” As a judicial announcement of the penalty of a 
violated law, it was declared, “ Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou 
return.” This sentence most evidently reaches every child of Adam; 
therefore all are under the penalty; and as the penalty embraced death, 
temporal, spiritual, and eternal, and as total depravity, or a complete 
alienation of the soul from the “image of God,” or primitive holiness, 
is included therein, it necessarily follows, from their relation to Adam 
as their federal head, and the nature of the penalty in which they are 
involved, that all mankind are by nature totally depraved. (See Watson’s 
Institutes, Part ii., Chap. 18.) 

2. We proceed, in the next place, to adduce direct declarations of 
Scripture for the establishment of the doctrine under consideration. 
The doctrine of the innate depravity of human nature is found m 
almost all parts of the Bible. 

(1) We first adduce proofs from the Old Testament. 

The first passage we shall here present refers to the condition of man 
anterior to the food. Gen. vi. 5: “And God saw that the wickedness 
of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the 
thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” Here we see the total 
depravity of the antediluvians expressed in language as forcible as 
could be framed for the purpose. “The heart of man is here,” as Heb- 
don has observed, “put for the soul.” This noble principle, formed orig- 
inally for holy exercises, had become so deeply debased, that “every 
imagination of the thoughts”—that is, the entire intellectual and moral 
powers—had become totally corrupt; “only evil”—there was no moral 
good left—* continually:” this was not an occasional or even a frequent 
lapse into pollution, but it was the constant and uninterrupted state, 
not of a portion of the human family, but of “man,” the general mass 
of the race of Adam. 

Again, turn to Genesis viii. 21, and read: “I will not again curse 
the ground any more, for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s 
heart is evil from his youth: neither will I again smite any more 
every living thing.” Here we may observe two things are forcibly 
expressed : 

(1) The total depravity of man in general. The term refers to the 
entire race; spoken at a time, too, when none but Noah and his family 
were living upon the earth. 

(2) This total depravity is represented as characteristic cf human 


Uh. xi.] TAE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 131 


nature, not in certain stages or periods of life, but during the entire 
history—‘* from his youth”—that is, his infancy, or earliest period of 
his accountability. Here is not the slightest intimation that this de- 
pravity is acquired by education, example, or otherwise; nay, the sup- 
position is impossible. If the principle of evil were not innate, it could 
not be affirmed to exist “from his youth,” for some time, at least, would 
be necessary for its acquirement. Nor could this affirmation be made 
of man, or human nature, as such, especially as the good example 
and religious precepts of the righteous family then existing, if the char- 
acter of man is only corrupted by example or education, might cer- 
tainly be expected to exercise a salutary influence, at least, upon some 
of their posterity, so as to prevent their falling into this state of moral 
pollution. 

Next, we turn to Job. v.7: “Man is born unto trouble as the sparks 
fly upward.” Here the plain meaning is that a state of trouble is just 
as natural and certain to man as for “the sparks to fly upward.” 
Now, unless it can be shown that perfectly innocent beings are sub- 
jected to “trouble,” pain, and death, which the Scriptures declare to 
be the consequences only of sin, it will necessarily follow that man is 
born in sin and guilt. In Job xv. 14, we read: “What is man that he 
should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be 
righteous?” The reading of the Septuagint here is, “Who shall be 
clean from filth? Not one, even though his life on earth be a single day.” 

Again, Ps. li. 5: “ Behold, I was shapen in iniquity ; and in sin did 
my mother conceive me.” Here, upon the supposition that man is born 
in a state of moral rectitude, the plain declarations of Scripture are 
subject to no rational interpretation, but must be shamefully evaded or 
boldly denied. 

Ps. lviii. 3, 4: “The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go 
astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.” Here, “ estranged ” 
and “speaking lies” certainly strongly express a state of depravity 
«“ Estranged”—alienated from the “divine image ;” “speaking lies "— 
going forward in actual sin; “from the womb, as soon as they are 
born”—not an acquired, but a native depravity. What other sense can 
the words bear? 

Jer. xvii. 9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desper- 
ately wicked; who can know it?” Here, total depravity is expressed 
in strong language. Observe, the prophet does not say, the hearts of 
the most abandoned characters; but “the heart of man”—the race in 
general, in their native state. He does not speak of it as partially, but 
totally, depraved— desperately wicked.” 


132 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi Brs 


3. Quotations from the Old Testament might be multiplied, but we 
deem it useless, and shall now pass to the New Testament, 

Perhaps one of the most forcible passages upon this subject is found 
in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 10-18th verses: 
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no not one: there is none that 
understandeth; there is none that seeketh after God. They are all 
gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is 
none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; 
with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under 
their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are 
swift to shed }lood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the 
way of peace have they not known, There is no fear of God before 
their eyes.” 

The apostle here quotes from the fourteenth and fifty-third Psalms. 
A more glowing picture of total depravity it is, perhaps, impossible for 
language to paint. It applies to the entire race: “The Lord looked 
down from heaven upon the children of men” (the world at large); 
and here is portrayed the divine decision upon their moral character. 
That this description refers to the native character of all men, is evi- 
dent from the fact that the language here used could not apply to the 
actual moral character of all men, in any age; for there have always 
been some who, in this sense, have been pronounced righteous, in the 
judgment of God himself. 

That the application and foree of the apostle’s argument in this chap- 
ter may be more clearly seen, we will quote the 19th and 23d verses: 
“ Now, we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them 
who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the 
world may become guilty before God.” “For all have sinned, and come 
short of the glory of God.” The apostle is here illustrating the doo- 
trine of justification. His object is to show, 1. That all the world, both 
Jews and Gentiles, are in the same deplorable state of “sin” and 
“guilt.” 2. That there is but one plan by which any can be justified, 
that is, by the mercy of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. His whole 
argument is founded upon the universal depravity of man; and this 
must be understood to apply to the state of all the human family, not 
at any particular period, but during their entire history up to the time 
in which justification takes place by faith in Christ. If we deny this, 
his argument immediately becomes inappropriate and powerless. If 
men are by nature in a justified state, then how could the apostle argue, 
from their unholy and sinful nature, that all need justification, and that 
they can obtain it by faith alone? 


EE ee 


Dietitian. 


Ch. xi.) THE EFFRCTS oF THE FALL OF MAN. 1338 


Let it be observed that the expressions of the apostle, in this chapter, 
in reference to the state of man, are so general and so full in their 
extent and import, that two important points are established beyond 
dispute: 1. That he is describing the condition of the whole human 
family, in every stage of their existence, previous to their acceptance 
of salvation by the gospel. His expressions are, “Both Jews and Gen- 
tiles,” “all,” and “all the world.” 2. The condition in which he repre- 
sents them is not one of innocence or righteousness, but of sin and pol- 
lution: his language is, “They are all under sin; all have sinned, and 
come short of the glory of God;” and that “all the world may become 
guilty before God.” Now, we may confidently demand, what portion 
of the human family are not here included? And if they are not in a 
state of moral pollution, what meaning can be placed upon the apos- 
tle’s words? The testimony here is so pointed, that if the native 
depravity of man be not here taught, then shall we be compelled te 
affirm that “sin” is no more “sin,” and “guilt” is no more “guilt.” 

Our next proof is founded upon those passages which base the neces- 
sity of the new birth upon the native depravity of man. 

Here the discourse of our Lord with Nicodemus is conclusive. John 
iii. 3: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
God.” Fifth, sixth, and seventh verses: “Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the 
Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 
again.” 

Here the necessity of the new birth is grounded upon the character 
with which we are born naturally. How, then, can this be, if we are 
born holy? Surely, if such were the case, so far from arguing there- 
from the necessity of being born again, the rational inference would be, 
that as we had already been born in a state of holiness, there is no 
necessity for the new birth. That our Saviour, when he says, “That 
which is born of the flesh is flesh,” by the term flesh, in the latter 
instance, refers to our native sinfulness and pollution, is clear from the 
fact that no other construction can be placed upon his words without 
making him speak nonsense. If we say that the word flesh is to be 
taken for the body literally, in both places, then the sentence only con- 
tains a simple truism, too puerile to be uttered by the lips of the blessed 
Jesus; and it would have been quite as instructive had he said, That 
which is true is true. Besides, how then could he have drawn, from 
the fart that he announced, any argument for the necessity of the new 


birth? 


134 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [r.i. B. 2 


That the term flesh is frequently used in the Scriptures to denote the 
principle of corruption, or native depravity, in man, will appear from 
the following passages:—Rom. vii. 18: “In my flesh dwelleth no 
good thing.” Rom. viii. 13: “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die.’ 
Gal. v.17: “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit 
ugainst the flesh.” 

In the eighth chapter of Romans, the apostle uses the term as 
expressive of a principle of unholiness opposed to the Spirit, and 
enlarges upon the subject so clearly as to furnish an admirable com- 
ment on our Lord’s words to Nicodemus. Fifth to the eighth verse: 
“For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but 
they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be car- 
nally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God ; for it is not subject to 
the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the 
flesh cannot please God.” In 1 Cor. ii. 14, a parallel passage reads: 
“The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for 
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they 
are spiritually discerned.” 

Now, let the quotations from the apostle be taken in connection with 
what our Saviour said to Nicodemus, and the argument is full and con- 
clusive that every man who is literally born of the flesh inherits from 
his birth a carnal, unholy, or depraved nature, so directly opposed to 
the Spirit and every thing good, that in that nature, or while he walks 
after it, he cannot please God, and therefore he must be born again. 
How different this from the teachings of those who speak of the native 
purity of man, and represent a sinful disposition as the result of exam- 
ple or education! 

The Bible doctrine most evidently is, that we are born with an unholy 
or sinful nature—that the principle of evil is as really and deeply en- 
grafted in our natural constitution as that of poison in the egg of the 
serpent. As certainly as the young viper will be naturally poisonous 
and disposed to bite so soon as its native powers are developed, so will 
man, as he advances to maturity, be possessed of an evil nature of 
enmity to God, which will ever lead him in the way of sin, until the 
“old man be crucified,” and he be “born again.” If the tree be evil, 
the fruit will also be evil; if the fountain be impure, it will send forth 
a corrupt stream. The root of sin is inherent in the very nature of 
man. “Out of the heart of man,” or from this native principle of unho- 
liness, proceed all manner of wickedness and abominations. Such is 
the doctrine of the Scriptures. 


th. xi.) THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 138 


4. We proceed in the next place to notice that this doctrine vs con 
firmed by experience and observation. 

Aside from the clear testimony of Scripture to the doctrine of the 
uative depravity of man, it receives abundant corroborative proof from 
our individual experience, and from the history of the world. The 
principal evidence of this kind may be embraced in five important facts, 
which are thus stated by Mr. Watson: 

“1, The, at least, general corruption of manners in all times and 
vountries 2. The strength of the tendency in man to evil. 3. The 
early appearance of the principles of various vices in children. 4. 
Every man’s consciousness of a natural tendency in his mind to one or 
more evils. 5. That general resistance to virtue in the heart which 
renders education, influence, watchfulness, and conflict, necessary to 
counteract the force of evil.” 

The above facts are so evident that we scarce suppose it possible 
for any one of common intelligence and candor to deny them. To 
account for them on any reasonable principles, upon the supposition 
that man is not by nature depraved, is, in our opinion, utterly impos: 
sible. 

Socinians, Pelagians, and Unitarians, have generally admitted their 
truth, and their utmost ingenuity has been exerted to show that they 
can be reconciled with their system. 

A brief notice of their efforts on this subject may suffice. 

(1) To account for the general prevalence of wickedness, reliance has 
been placed on the influence of example and education. 

Here a little attention, we think, will show that the difficulty is not 
solved, but only shifted to another quarter. If man be not naturally 
depraved, it will be just as difficult to account for bad example as for 
wickedness itself; yea, more: bad example is but another name for 
wickedness. Therefore, to say that general wickedness is the result of 
general had example, is the same as to say that general wickedness is 
the result of general wickedness; or, in other words, the cause of itself, 
which is a manifest absurdity. Farther, we might ask, How was it, 
upon this principle, that the first example of the various species of 
moral wickedness originated? Whose example taught Cain to hate 
and murder his brother? Whose example taught the first idolater to 
worship an idol? And so we might pass over the entire catalogue of 
vices, and show that, according to this system, they never could have 
originated. That we are naturally imitative beings, to a great 
extent, we readily admit; but if this alone leads to a course of wicked- 
ness, it would follow, upon the same principle, that. there should be 


136 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P..iv Bad 


quite as much potency in good as in bad example. But, we ask, is this 
the case? Why did not the piety of righteous Noah lead all his sons 
and their descendants, from generation to generation, in the pathway 
of duty and obedience? 

Again, is it not frequently the case that the children of pious parents 
fall into habits of immorality? If example alone shapes their charac- 
ter, surely the pious example of their parents, which they see almost 
constantly before their eyes, should be more powerful than the wicked 
example of others more remote from them, and perhaps but seldom 
witnessed. Allow to example all the influence it can possibly wield, 
still it would follow that if man is naturally innocent and pure, there 
should be more virtue than vice in the world; but if, as some contend, 
the soul is naturally indifferent—a perfect blank, tending neither to 
good or evil—then we might expect to find virtue and vice pretty 
equally balanced. But the fact of the world’s history is contradictory 
to all this. 

(2) But now look at the second fact—the strength of the tendency in 
man to evil. 

Who has not felt this in his own heart? “When I would do good, 
evil is present with me.” The turbulence of evil passions is such that 
(ae wise man has said, “He that ruleth his spirit is better than he that 
taketh a city.” The strength of this native tendency in man to evil is 
so great that, to counteract it, an effort is required; the cross must be 
taken up, right hands cut off, right eyes plucked out, and a violent 
warfare upon the impulses of our own nature must be waged. Now. 
contemplate the absurdity of supposing that bad example could origi- 
nate this tendency to evil. If such were the case, good example would 
produce a similar tendency to good; but such is evidently not the fact. 
The native tendency of the human heart is invariably to sin; so much 
so, that in no case can it be counteracted but by the “crucifixion” of 
“the old man.” 

(3) The third fact is the early appearance of the principles of various 
vices in children. 

Although entirely separated from their species, native instinct will 
lead the young lion or tiger to be fierce and voracious ; and, with equal 
certainty, pride, envy, malice, revenge, selfishness, anger, and ~ther 
evil passions, have been found invariably to spring up at a very early 
stage in the hearts of children, whatever may have been the example 
or education with which they have been furnished. Nay, they have 
more or less frequently exhibited themselves before the opportunity 
sculd have been afforded for the influence of example. Now, how can 


Ch. xi.] THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 137 


this be accounted for but upon the supposition that the seeds of these 
vices are sown in our nature? 

(4) The fourth fact is, that every man is conscious of a natural tend- 
ency to many evils. 

All men are not prone alike to every species of vice. Some have a 
strong constitutional tendency to pride, others to anger, others to cow- 
ardice, others to meanness, and others perhaps to avarice or sensuality. 
Now, if we deny the native depravity of man, we necessarily deny this 
constitutional tendency to one vice more than another; for if man has 
no native tendency to evil in general, it is clear he can have no native 
tendency to any particular species of evil. Every whole includes all 
its parts. 

(5) The fifth fact is, that general resistance to virtue in the heart, which 
renders education, influence, watchfulness, and conflict necessary to counter- 
act the force of evil. 

Vice in the human soul, like noxious weeds in a luxuriant soil, is a 
spontaneous growth. It only requires to be left alone, and it will flour- 
ish. Not so with virtue. Its seeds must be sown, and, like the valu- 
able grains produced by the assiduous care and toil of the husbandman, 
it requires an early and persevering culture. Hence the necessity of a 
careful moral training—the value of a good education. What power- 
ful influences are requisite to be wielded in the promotion of virtue! 
Motives of gratitude, interest, honor, benevolence, and every considera- 
tion that ought to weigh with an intelligent mind, are presented as 
incentives to virtue. The closest vigilance is necessary at every point 
to keep the object of good from being entirely forgotten or neglected ; 
and, withal, a perpetual conflict must be kept up with surrounding 
evil, or the thorns and thistles of vice and folly will choke the growth 
of the good seed, and lay waste the blooming prospect. Why, we ask, 
is this the case? Deny the doctrine of the native depravity of man, 
and it is utterly unaccountable. If example were the only influence, 
and man had no greater tendency to evil than to good, might we not as 
well expect to find virtue the spontaneous and luxuriant growth, and 
vice the tender plant, requiring all this toil and care for its preservation 
and prosperity ? 

Those who have endeavored to account for these facts on the prm- 
ciple of education, find in their undertaking no less difficulty than those 
who attribute them to the influence of example. Education, in too 
many instances, it must be confessed, has been greatly defective; but 
never so bad as to account for all the evil passions and sinful practices 
of men. So far from this being the case, its general tendency, defective 


138 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.& 


as it may be, is of an opposite character. Men are generally wicked, 
not so much for the want of good precept, as in spite of it. Instrue- 
tion has generally been better than example; so that, if bad example 
cannot account for the proneness to evil in men, much less can educa- 
tion. Who taught the first murderer his lessons in the crime of shed- 
ding his brother’s blood? Which of the prevalent vices of mankind 
had its origin in imparted instruction? What crime is it that can 
only exist and prevail where special schools are established for its 
culture? The influence of education, it must be admitted, is very 
great; but the difficulty to be accounted for is this: Why is it that 
man is so ready in the school of vice, and so dull in the school of vir- 
cue? Deny the doctrine of our native corruption, and why might we 
aot, with far more reason, expect that education should produce general 
virtue than general vice? Thus have we seen that experience and 
observation only confirm the Scripture doctrine of the native and total 
\epravity of man. 


Ok. xi.) 


THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF MAN. 


189 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XI. 


Quzstron 1. What is the Pelagian and 


2. 


3. 


t. 
5. 


10, 


Socinian notion of depravity ? 
What other erroneous opinion has 
obtained on the subject? 
What is the true doctrine upon this 
subject? 
Is man by nature totally depraved? 
What distorted view of this doctrine 
have its opponents generally pre- 
sented? 


. Does total depravity imply deprav- 


14. 


15. 


ity in every possible sense, and to | 


the greatest possible extent? 


. In what respects may depravity be 


understood to be total? 


. Wherein appears the absurdity of 


representing total depravity as im- 
plying depravity in every ae 
sense and degree? 


. What two positions, already estab- 


lished, form the basis of the first 
argument? 

How does it appear that Adam was 
the natural head and representa- 
tive of his posterity ? 


. Do his posterity stand chargeable 


with the personal obliquity of his 
offense? 

In what two senses is sin taken, ac- 
cording to Dr. Watts? 


. How does it appear that our relation 


to Adam, our guilt, and our sub- 


bo 
bo 


jection to the penalty of the law, 
are inseparably connected ? 

In what way do these facts prove 
our native and total depravity ? 
What passages are brought from the 
Old Testament to prove this doc- 

trine? 


. From the New Testament? 
. Do experience and observation con- 


firm this doctrine? 


. What five obvious facts are here ap- 


pealed to? 


. How have Pelagians and Socinians 


endeavored to account for these 
facts? 


. How does it appear that they only 


shift, without solving the diffi- 
culty? 


. If men were naturally holy, what 


kind of example might we reason- 
ably expect to be most prevalent? 
If the moral character of man 
were naturally indifferent to good 
and evil, what might we expect 
to be the state of actual charac- 
ter? 


. How does it appear that education 


cannot account for these facts? 
Admitting the influence of educa- 
tion to be ever so great, what 
would be the great d fficulty stil 
remaining ? 


140 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.S 


CHAPTER XII. 


DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. — 


Havine contemplated the evidences by which the doctrine of the 
innate depravity of man is sustained, we propose in the present chapter 
an examination of several dificulties with which the opposers of this doe- 
trine have considered it encumbered. 

I. It has been urged by the advocates of original innocence, that this 
doctrine of total depravity makes God directly the author of sin, by alleging 
that he has judicially infused into the nature of man a positive evil, taint, 
or infection, which descends from Adam to all his posterity. 

To this we reply, that although some advocates of the doctrine have 
so expressed themselves as to give seeming ground for this objection, 
yet a close attention to the proper definition of depravity will entirely 
free the doctrine from any difficulty from this quarter. The doctrine 
of the native depravity of man, as taught in the Scriptures, does not 
imply a direct infusion of positive evil from the Almighty. The posi- 
tive evil here implied is rather the necessary consequence of a privation 
of moral good: as it has been aptly expressed by some, it is “a deprav- 
ition resulting from a deprivation.” 

This view of the subject is sustained by the following remarks from 
Arminius: “But since the tenor of the covenant into which God entered 
with our first parents was this, that if they continued in the favor and 
grace of God, by the observance of that precept and others, the gifts 
which had been conferred upon them should be transmitted to their 
posterity by the like divine grace which they had received; but if they 
should render themselves unworthy of those favors, through disobedi- 
ence, that their posterity should likewise be deprived of them, and 
should be liable to the contrary evils: hence it followed that all men 
who were to be naturally propagated from them, have become obnox- 
jous to death temporal and eternal, and have been destitute of that gift 
of the Holy Spirit, or of original righteousness. This punishment is 
usually called a privation of the image of God, and original sin. But 
we allow this point to be made the subject of discussion: besides the 
want or absence of original righteousness, may not some other contrary 


Ch. xii.) DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 141 


quality be constituted as another part of original sin? We think it is 
more probable that this absence alone of original righteousness is origi- 
nal sin itself, since it alone is sufficient for the commission and produc- 
tion of every actual sin whatever.” 

The scriptural view of the subject is, that Adam by sin forfeited the 
gift of the Holy Spirit for himself and his posterity, and this privation, 
as a necessary consequence, resulted in the loss of holiness, happiness, 
and every spiritual good, together with real involvement in all the evil 
implied in spiritual death. As death, with putrefaction and corruption, 
flows directly from the privation of natural life,so moral evil or deprav- 
ity immediately and necessarily results from the absence of spiritual 
life. So we perceive there was no necessity for the direct infusion of 
moral evil by the Almighty. It was only requisite for the Holy Spirit 
to be withdrawn, and moral evil, like a mighty torrent when the flood. 
gate is lifted, deluged and overwhelmed the soul. 

The following, upon the subject of the “retraction of God’s Spirit 
from Adam,” is from Mr. Howe: “This we do not say gratuitously; for 
do but consider that plain text, Gal. iii. 13: ‘Christ hath redeemed us 
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, 
Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abra- 
ham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might 
receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” If the remission of 
the curse carry with it the conferring of the grace of the Spirit, then 
the curse, while it did continue, could not but include and carry in it 
the privation of the Spirit. This was part of the curse upon apostate 
Adam—the loss of God’s Spirit. As soon as the law was broken, man 
was cursed, so as that thereby the Spirit should be withheld—should be 
kept off otherwise than as upon the Redeemer’s account, and according 
to his methods it should be restored. Hereupon it could not but ensue 
that the holy image of God must be erased and vanished.” 

We conclude upon this point with the following quotation from Mr. 
Watson’s Institutes. Speaking of Adam, he says: “He did sin, and 
the Spirit retired; and the tide of sin once turned in, the mound of 
resistance being removed, it overflowed his whole nature. In this 
state of alienation from God, men are born with all these tendencies 
to evil, because the only controlling and sanctifying power—the pres- 
ence of the Spirit—is wanting, and is now given to man, not as when 
first brought into being as a creature, but is secured to him by the 
mercy and grace of a new and different dispensation, under which the 
Spirit is administered in different degrees, times, and modes, according 
to the wisdom of God, never on the ground of our being creatures, 


142 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.2 


but as redeemed from the curse of the law by him who became a curse 
for us.” 

IL In the next place, it is objected to this doctrine that “As we have 
souls immediately from God, if we are born sinful, he must either create 
sinful souls, which cannot be supposed without impiety, or send sinless 
souls into sinful bodies, to be defiled by the unhappy union, which is as 
inconsistent with his goodness as his justice. Add to this, that nothing 
can be more unphilosophical than to suppose that a body—a mere lump 
of organized matter—is able to communicate to a pure spirit that moral 
pollution of which itself is as incapable as the murderer’s sword is 
incapable of cruelty.” 

To this objection we reply, that however weighty it may have been 
considered by many, it rests entirely upon a vulgar assumption, which 
cannot be sustained, viz., that we have our souls immediately from God 
by infusion, That such is not the fact, but that they descend from 
Adam by traductien, we are led to believe from the following consider- 
ations: 

1. It is said that God “rested on the seventh day from all his work” 
of creation; consequently it is unreasonable to suppose that he is still 
engaged in the creation of souls, as the bodies of mankind multiply upon 
earth. 

9. Eve was originally created in Adam. God made Adam of the 
«dust of the ground,” and infused into his body a living soul; but when 
Eve was afterward produced, she was not properly created: she was 
made of a part of Adam’s body, and there is no account of God’s 
breathing into her the breath of life, as in the case of Adam. She was 
called woman because she was taken out of man. Now,as Eve derived 
her nature, soul and body, from Adam, why may not the souls of his 
posterity descend from him? : 

2 If we do not derive our souls by natural descent, neither can we 
thus derive the life of our bodies, for “the body without the spirit is 
dead.” 

4. We read in Gen. v. 3, that fallen “Adam begat a son in his own 
likeness, after his image.” Adam was a fallen, embodied spirit; such 
also must have been his son, or he could not have been “in his own 
likeness.” 

5. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus: “That which is born of the flesh 
is flesh.” We have in another place shown that by the term flesh here 
in the latter instance, we are to understand our fallen, sinful nature. 
If so, it must include the soul. Again, it is written, “Ye must be born 
again.” Now, if the soul is not born with the body, how can its reno 


ch. xii.] DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 143 


vation in conversion be called being “born again?” Surely the body 
is not “born again” in conversion. 

Some have thought that the doctrine of the traduction of human 
souls tends to Materialism. “But this arises,” says Mr. Watson, “from 
a mistaken view of that in which the procreation of a human being lies, 
which does not consist in the production out of nothing of either of the 
-parts of which the compounded being, man, is constituted, but in the 
uniting them substantially with one another.” ince, therefore, the 
traduction of the human soul is more rational and scriptural than its 
immediate creation, the objection to the doctrine of the native pollution 
of the soul, which we have been considering, is shown to be groundless. 

We need not be told that the view here taken of this subject involves 
mysteries. This we admit. But is it therefore erroneous? Who can 
understand the mysteries of the new birth? and yet we receive the doc- 
trine as true. Why, then, should we reject the doctrine of the natural 
descent of the soul, merely because we cannot comprehend how it is 
that all the souls as well as the bodies of his posterity were created in 
Adam, from whom they are derived by descent? 

III. In the third place, the doctrine of the native total depravity of 
man has been objected to from the fact that there is Srequently to be 
found much moral good in unregenerate men. 

In reply to this, we observe, that all the good claimed with justice as 
belonging to unregenerate men, can be satisfactorily accounted for with- 
out denying that all men are by nature totally depraved. 

1. There may be much seeming good, much negative virtue, in soci- 
ety, originating from the fact that many of the various vices of man- 
kind, from their very nature, to some extent counteract each other. Thus 
the passion of avarice may lead to the practice of industry. The love 
of fame may lead to acts of ostentatious benevolence, ete., but in such 
cases the principle of action is not spiritually good. 

2. Selfish motives may frequently lead to acts of seeming virtue; a 
mere love of self-interest induces many to endeavor to secure for them- 
selves a good character on account of the standing and influence which 
it will give them in society; all this may be perfectly consistent with 
the view we have presented of the native corruption of the soul. 

3. In the next place, the character of man may appear much better 
than it really is, merely because surrounding circumstances have not 
called into open action the latent principles of the soul. The seed of 
evil may be there, but it may not come forth and exhibit itself, merely 
because those exciting causes calculated to call it forth to action have 
not been brought to bear. 


144 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.2 


4. But lastly, that acts really praiseworthy, and founded upon prin- 
ciples not wholly corrupt, have frequently been performed by the unre- 
generate, we are compelled to admit. But all this can be satisfactorily 
and fully explained without impugning the doctrine of total depravity. 
We are not left entirely to ourselves, and to the unbridled influence of 
our corrupt nature. Through the atonement of Christ, a day of grace 
is given to men, the Holy Spirit is sent to visit the hearts of sinners, 
“dead in trespasses and sins,” and the “true light lighteth every man 
that cometh into the world;” so that all that is spiritually and really 
good in principle among men, is to be attributed, not to nature, but to 
grace. It comes not through the first, but the second Adam. 


cS 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIl. 


Question 1. In what respect has it been | 4. How is the objection answered ? 
said that the doctrine of total de-| 5. By what evidence is the natural de- 


pravity inakes God the author of sin? scent of souls sustained ? 
2. How is this objection answered? 6. How is the doctrine of depravity ob- 
3. How is th‘: doctrine objected to from jected to from the fact that there is 
the supposition that we receive our much moral good among unregepe- 
souls in mediately from God, by in- rate men? 


fusion ? 7. How is this objection answered? 


sin} DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. AAA 


- 


CHAPTER XIII. 


DEPRAVITY — OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED —MORAL STATE AND LEGAI 
RELATION OF INFANTS, 


Ir has been objected that the doctrine cf innate depravity is inconsat- 
ent with the principles of a righteous administration in the case of infants. 

The objection now presented has, perhaps, been more earnestly and 
repeatedly urged, and more confidently relied upon, by the advocates 
of the native innocence and purity of man, than any other. And as a 
proper urGerstanding of the character and condition of infants is so 
vitally essential to a correct view of the entire doctrine of human 
depravity, we shall devote this chapter to the investigation of that inter- 
esting topic. The following are the principal theories which have been 
advocated upon this subject: 

1. That infants are born perfectly innocent and holy. 

2. That they are born without any moral character whatever, and 
alike indifferent to good and evil. 

3. That they are born with a strong bias to evil, though not totally 
corrupt. 

4. That they are born in a state of sinfulness,and guilt, amounting 
to total depravity; and that, notwithstanding the atonement of Christ, 
some of them, dying in infancy, may perish everlastingly. 

5. That they are born in a state of unholiness, but, through the 
atonement of Christ, in a state of justification or innocence, and that, 
if they die in infancy, they will be infallibly saved. 

6. That they are born in a state of pollution and guilt, but that, 
through the atonement of Christ, all who die in infancy will infallibly 
he saved. 

It will be readily perceived that while the difference between some 
of these theories is very slight, between others it is vastly important. 
In ths place we remark, that what we conceive to be the true Scrip- 
ture doctrine is contained in the last-mentioned theory. ‘The first, 
viz., that “infants are born perfectly innocent and holy,” is the doctrine 
of Pelagians, Socinians, and Unitarians generally, and has already 
been sufficiently refuted. 

10 


ldo ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (T..b 2 


The second, viz., that they are born “without any moral character 
whatever, and alike indifferent to good and evil,” and the third, viz., 
that “they are born with a strong bias to evil, though not totally corrupt,” 
have both had their advocates among semi-Pelagians, Socinians, Unita- 
rians, and some of the New School Presbyterians of the United States, 
and have already been sufficiently refuted. 

The fourth, viz., that “they are born in a state of sinfulness and 
cuilt, amounting to total depravity, and that, notwithstanding the atone- 
ment of Christ, some of them, dying in infancy, may perish everlast- 
ingly,” has been advocated by none but predestinarians. The latter 
branch of this theory, which avows the possibility of infants perishing 
everlastingly, is the only portion of it inconsistent with what we 
conceive to be the Scripture doctrine; and it shall presently be con- 
sidered. 

The fifth, viz., that “they are born in a state of unholiness, but, 
through the atonement of Christ, in a state of justification or innocence, 
and that, if they die in infancy, they will infallibly be saved,” has been 
advocated by some Arminian divines. That part of this theory, which 
avows the native innocence or justification of infants, is the only portion 
of it which we conceive to be erroneous, and it will be presently con- 
sidered. 

The sixth, viz., that “they are born in a state of pollution and Jegal 
guilt, but that, through the atonement of Christ, all who die in infancy 
will infallibly be saved,” has been advocated by the leading divines of 
the Arminian school, and contains what we believe to be the Scripture 
doctrine; and so far ag it differs from the fourth and fifth theories, we 
shall proceed to its investigation. 

Observe here, that so far as this theory differs from the first, second, 
and third theories, it has already been considered in the investigation 
of the doctrine of innate total depravity; therefore its discrepancy with 
the fourth and fifth theories is all that is now before us. It differs from 
the fourth theory in that it avows the infallible salvation of all who die 
in infancy. 1t differs from the fifth theory in that it avows the native 
legal guilt of infants, in opposition to their native innocence or justifica- 
tien. We will attend to these two points in order. 

I. We shall endeavor to show that all who die in infancy will infalli- 
bly be saved. 

The possibility of the eternal destruction of any who die in infancy 
is so directly at war with what we conceive to be the character of the 
divine attributes, and so shocking to the human feelings, that it is really 
astonishing that the sentiment should ever have received the least coup 


wh. xiii) DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 147 


tenance. Few, indeed, even of those whose general system of theology 
required it, have had the hardihood openly to avow it; yet it has had 
some bold and confident defenders. 

In the “ Westminster Confession of Faith,” the standard of the Pres 
byterians of the United States, we find the following declaration: 
“ Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ 
through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.” 
Here, although the possibility of infants perishing is not fully expressed, 
yet it appears to us to be clearly implied. To speak of “elect infants,” 
necessarily implies that there are reprobate infants; for if all infants 
were “elect,” the term elect in the passage would be superfluous and 
unmeaning. But the sentiments avowed in other parts of the same 
book clearly teach that there are reprobate infants. Election and rep- 
robation, according to the whole Calvinistic scheme, are eternal and 
unconditional; consequently all who ever sustain the charater of elect 
or reprobate must do so even in infancy. Again, as the salvation of 
“elect infants” is here specified, the idea is clearly implied that none 
others are saved. 

That such is the view taken by at least some of the leading authors 
of the Calvinistic school, we see from the following language of Dr. 
George Hill, in his Lectures, Book IV., Ch. i.: “In-what manner the 
mercy of God will dispose hereafter of those infants who die in conse- 
quence of Adam’s sin, without having done any evil, the Scriptures have 
not declared; and it does not become us to say more than is said in the 
excellent words of our Confession of Faith.” He then repeats the 
words from the Confession as above quoted. 

Here observe, that although the author appears to shrink from a 
direct avowal of his sentiments, yet we can be at no loss to determine 
them from his own language. He was a Presbyterian, and here quotes 
with approbation the standard of his own Church, which we have seen 
implies the possibility—yea, the certainty—of some infants being not 
saved. Yet it must be confessed that the author, in the short quotation 
made from him, indirectly contradicts himself. He first affirms: “In 
what manner the mercy of God will dispose of those infants who die in 
eunsequence of Adam’s sin, without having done any evil, the Scriptures 
Aave not declared.” He then quotes, with commendation, the language 
of the Confession of Faith, which, as we have seen, does expressly de- 
clare what disposition shall be made of one portion, and clearly implies 
what disposition shall be made of the other portion. Thus it is clear 
that the horrible doctrine of the eternal damnation of infants has had 
manifest favor with at least some of the mcst eminent predestinarians. 


148 ELEMENTS OF DYVINITY. (Pit 72, 


although they have generally faltered, felt themselves trammeled, and 
fallen into inconsistency and self-contradiction, when they have spoken 
upon the subject. 

In the outset, we confess that the Scriptures nowhere declare, in 
express and direct terms, that all who die in infancy shall mfallibly be 
saved. But this cannot be urged as a proof that the doctrine is not 
there plainly taught. The Scriptures nowhere declare, in express and 
direct terms, that there is a God; but who will venture to affirm that 
the existence of God is not therein plainly taught? Indirect and infer- 
ential testimony is frequently as powerful and convincing as a direct 
asseveration possibly can be. Indeed, there are some truths, both in 
science and religio~. so obviously implied and so deeply interwoven in 
the whole system with which they stand connected, that a direct affirma- 
tion of them would be a work of supererogation. Such is evidently 
the being of God above referred to. But so far from the Scripture evi- 
dence upon that subject being impaired by the absence of a direct affir- 
nation, it derives additional strength and majesty from that very cir- 
cumstance. The same observation will be correct in reference to the 
eternal salvation of all who die in infancy. This is so clearly implied 
in the very nature of the divine attributes and administration, and in the 
whole tenor of Scripture, that the inspired penmen have not stopped to 
affirm it in direct terms. But that the Scriptures do teach this doctrine 
in an indirect, though clear and forcible manner, we may readily see. 

1. St. Peter declares that “God is no respecter of persons.” This 


may be taken as a brief illustration and comment upon the divine char- - 


acter and government, as we see them exhibited in the Scriptures. And 
were there no other text upon the subject, this is sufficient to prove the 
doctrine in question, our opponents themselves being judges. Now 
observe, it is admitted on all hands that some who die in infancy are 
saved; then it will follow that if a moral difference in the character of 
infants is not such as to justify so great a disparity in the divine pro- 
cedure with them as to send the one to happiness and the other to per- 
dition, alJ must inevitably be saved, or God is a “ respecter of persons,” 
contrary to the text. That the moral character of infants is the same, 
is an undeniable fact. Therefore we must admit the salvation of all 
who die in infancy, or flatly deny the above scripture. 

2. Take the doctrine and arguments of St. Paul, in the fifth chapter 
to the Romans where he contrasts the consequences of Adam’s sin with 
the benefits of the atonement of Christ, and you will find it impossible 
to understand his language unless you admit the truth of the doctrine 
for which we now contend. The apostle there shows that the benefits 


ee 


Ch. xiii.] DEPRAVITY——OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 149 


of redemption are coéxtensive with, yea, even surpass, the miseries of the 
Fall. How could this be, if some who are injured by the Fall are never 
benefited by Christ? And in what way can the infant, who dies and 
sinks to eternal destruction, be benefited by Christ? In the 18th verse 
of that chapter, we read: “Therefore, as by the offense of one, judg- 
ment came upon all men to condemnation ; even so, by the righteousness 
of one, the free gift came upon all men wnto justification of life.’ Here, 
if “all men,” in the first instance, includes the whole human family, so 
it must in the last instance. The terms are the same, and evidently 
used in the same sense. If this verse means any thing at all, it means 
that all who fell in Adam are provisionally restored in Christ. That 
all are actually and immediately justified, cannot be the meaning. 
Adults are not justified till they repent and believe; but the provision 
is made for the actual justification of all, according to certain terms, 
unless they themselves reject it by a voluntary refusal to comply with 
the condition. Infants cannot reject the provision; therefore, if they 
die in infancy, their actual justification and salvation must infallibly be 
completed. But, I ask, how can the infant, upon the supposition that 
it dies and sinks to ruin, be properly said to have been benefited by the 
remedial scheme? How can it be said that the “free gift” came upon 
such, (ei¢) “unto,” or in order to, justification of life? Surely we have 
in this passage indubitable, though indirect, proof of the eternal salva- 
tion of all who die in infancy. 

Many other proofs of a kindred character might be adduced, but we 
deem them unnecessary. It will follow, from what has been above pre- 
sented, that the doctrine of innate total depravity involves no difficulty 
in the divine administration in reference to infants, so far as their eter- 
nal destiny is concerned. Let the Fall be viewed in connection with the 
atonement. The merciful provision coéxisted with the miseries of the 
eurse; and as the hand of justice fell upon man to crush him, the hand 
of mercy was outstretched to redeem and save. 

II. We now enter upon the investigation of that portion of the 
theory we have adopted which avows the native legal guilt of infants, in 
opposiviun to their native legal justification or innocence. 

It has already been observed that some Arminian divines, who 
acknowletge the native moral pollution or unholiness of infants, con- 
tend, nevertheless, that through the atonement of Christ they are born 
in a state of justification or perfect innocence; and consequently that 
they are in no sense of the word guilty. The theory which we 
have presented not only contends that they are born unholy, but also 
that they are born legally guilty. Perhaps the difference of sentiment 


150 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY [P. i. B.2 


here may consist more in the definition of the term gui/t than in the 
subject itself; but so intimate is the connection of this subject with the 
important doctrine of human depravity, and so powerful its bearing 
upon the great subject of the atonement, and the entire scheme of re- 
demption, that great pains should be taken to be perfectly correct, even 
in the use of terms. A slight error here may almost imperceptibly lead 
to the pernicious principles of Pelagianism. 

1. The simple question which we now discuss is this: Are infants, in 
any sense of the word, guilty? We adopt the affirmative. But first, we 
inquire for the definition of the terms guilt and justification, as these 
terms, in the subject before us, stand opposed to each other. According 
to Webster and other lexicographers, one definition of guilt is “exposure 
to forfeiture or other penalty;” and one definition of justification is, 
“remission of sin and absolution from guilt and punishment.” These 
definitions, we think, have not only been sanctioned by orthodox divines 
in general, but are in accordance with the Scripture representation of 
the subject. 

With the understanding of the terms here presented, if it can be 
shown that infants are exposed to any kind of “forfeiture, or any other 
penalty” of any kind whatever, it will appear that they are guilty. As 
justification, in theology, is properly taken for the opposite of guilt, it 
will follow that if infants are justified, in the full sense of the word, 
they cannot be guilty, in any sense of the word; but, on the other hand, 
if there is any sense of the word in which they are not justified, in the 
same sense, they must be guilty. Now, that they are not personally or 
actually guilty, or guilty in any sense of the word, so as to be personally 
accountable to God in judgment, or in danger of future and eternal 
punishment, we freely admit. Therefore the only question now in dis- 
pute is simply this: Are infants guilty, according to the Scriptures, in 
the view of the law and government of God, as a consequence of original 
sin visited upon them from Adam? This is the only and the plain 
point at issue. In the light of Scripture and reason, we proceed to 
examine the question. 

In Ps, li. 5, we read: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in stn 
did my mother conceive me.” On this verse, Dr. Clarke says: “I be- 
lieve David to speak here of what is commonly called original sin.” 
The advocates for the native innocence of infants are reduced to the 
necessity of flatly contradicting this text, or, what is little better, the 
strange absurdity of asserting that both sin and iniquity may exist 
without guilt, and be reconciled with perfect innocence. Farther still, 
they must either reject Dr. Clarke’s comment, or admit that guilt is 


Ch. xiii.) DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 151 


mplied in original sin. In Isa. liii. 6, we read: “The Lord hath laid 
on him the iniquity of us all.” On this verse, Dr. Clarke says: “The 
Lord hath caused to meet in him the punishment due to the iniquities 
of all.” 

Here, if we say that infants are not included, we are reduced to the 
absurdity of saying that al/ only means a part; but, what is far worse, 
we are driven into Pelagianism; for if the punishment due to the orig- 
inal sin attached to infants was not laid upon Christ, he never died for 
them, and, sure enough, they may safely be left without a Redeemer! 
But if it be said that infants are included in this passage, then are they 
legally guilty; for their “iniquity was laid upon Christ.” But if we 
still deny their guilt, we are reduced to the absurdity of saying that 
here is iniquity, and that, too, requiring punishment, and yet, how pass- 
ing strange, this iniquity is free from guilt, and consistent with perfect 
innocence ! 

The state of the case then, if we deny absolutely the guilt of infants, 
would be this: infants are involved in sin and iniquity so heinous that 
its punishment was laid upon Christ, and yet so inoffensive as not to 
imply guilt in any sense, but perfect innocence! It is clear that if Christ 
suffered for infants at all, it was either for their guilt or their inno- 
cence. There can be no medium: wherever there is no guilt, there is 
perfect innocence. Then, if we deny the guilt of infants, if Christ 
suffered for them at all, it was for their perfect innocence; and, if so, 
his sufferings in their case were useless, for a perfectly innocent being 
never could have suffered eternal torment, even if there had been no 
atonement. Yea, we may say more: a perfectly innocent being can 
never be punished at all, unless that punishment be accompanied by a 
counterbalancing reward. 

In Rom. iii. 19, 23, we read: “That every mouth may be stopped, 
and all the world may become guilty before God;” and “All have sinned, 
and come short of the glory of God.” On these passages, Dr. Clarke 
uses these words: “ Both Jews and Gentiles stand convicted before God, 
for all mankind have sinned against this law.” He afterward adds: 
“And consequently are equally helpless and guilty.” Here, unless we 
say that “all the world,” and “all mankind,” only mean a part, we are 
compelled to admit the guilt of infants; otherwise we contradict both 
the commentator and the apostle, for they both expressly use the word 
guilty. 

It is, indeed, a matter of astonishment, that any one can read the fifth 
chapter of Romans, and not be convinced that all mankind, of every 
age, are held as sinful and guilty in consequence of the disobedience of 


152 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1. B. 2 


Adam. On the 14th verse, Dr. Clarke uses these words: “In or through 
Adam, guilt came upon all men.” Here, again, we have our choice, to 
acknowledge the guilt of infants, or contradict both the text and com- 
mentator. In the 18th verse of this chapter, “all men” are said to be 
brought under “condemnation” for “the offense of one.” If infants 
are included in “all men,” then are they brought under condemnation 
for the sin of Adam; and if so, then are they held guilty for the 
sin of Adam. Our only escape from this conclusion is to say that 
“condemnation” does not imply guilt, but may consist with perfect inno- 
cence. 

2. That the views we have expressed in relation to the hereditary 
guilt of infants are in accordance with the opinion of Mr. Wesiey, and 
the leading and standard authors among his followers, we will now show 
bv a few quotations, 

First, from Wesley, “On Original Sin,’ we make a few extracts— 
they were either original with him, or fully indorsed by him. “The 
death expressed in the original threatening, and implied in the sentence 
pronounced upon man, includes all evils which could befall his soul and 
body; death, temporal, spiritual, and eternal.” (Page 75.) “No just 
constitution can punish the innocent; therefore God does not look 
upon infants as innocent, but as involved in the guilt of Adam’s sin. 
Otherwise death, the punishment denounced against that sin, could not 
be inflicted upon them.” (Page 171.) “However, then, the sufferings 
wherein Adam’s sin has involved his whole posterity, may try and pu- 
rify us, in order to future and everlasting happiness, this circumstance 
does not alter their nature; they are punishments still.” (Page 173. 
“Where there is no sin, either personal or imputed, there can be no 
suffering.” (Page 185.) “Death did not come upon them (infants) as a 
mere natural effect of their father Adam’s sin and death, but as a 
proper and legal punishment of sin; for it is said, his sin brought con- 
demnation upon all men. Now, this is a legal term, and shows that 
death is not only a natural but a penal evil, and comes upon infants 
as guilty and condemned, not for their own actual sins, for they had 
none, but for the sin of Adam, their legal head, their appointed repre- 
sentative.” (Page 259.) “If, notwithstanding this, all mankind in all 
ages have died, infants themselves, who cannot actually sin, not excepted, 
it is undeniable that guilt is imputed to all for the sin of Adam. Why 
else are they liable to that which is inflicted on none but for sin?” 
(Page 323.) 

The following we quote from Fletcher’s Appeal: “If we are natu- 
rally innocent, we have a natural power to remain so, and by a proper 


Ub. xiii.] DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 1538 


use of it we may avoid standing in need of the salvation procured by 
Christ for the lost.” (Page 123.) 

The following we extract from the second Part of Watson’s Insti- 
tutes: “The fact of (infants) being born liable to death, a part of the 
penalty, is sufficient to show that they were born under the whole male- 
diction.” (Ch. xviii.) “This free gift is bestowed upon all men (ec) in 
order to justification of life.” (Ch. xviii.) “As to infants, they are not 
indeed born justified and regenerate; so that to say that <riginal sin 
is taken away as to infants, by Christ, is not the correct view of the 
ease.” (Ch. xviii.) “It may well be matter of surprise, that the natural 
innocence of human nature should ever have had its advocates.” (Ch. 
xvill.) “The full penalty of Adam’s offense passed upon his posterity.” 
(Ch. xviii.) “A full provision to meet this case is, indeed, as we have 
seen, made in the gospel ; but that does not affect the state in which men . 
are born. It is a cure for an actual existing disease, brought by us into 
the world; for, were not this the case, the evangelical institution would 
be one of prevention, not of remedy, under which light it is always 
represented.” (Ch. xviii.) “Pain and death are the consequences only 
of sin, and absolutely innocent beings must be exempt from them.” 
(Ch. xvii.) “The death and sufferings to which children are subject, is 
a proof that all men, from their birth, are ‘constituted,’ as the apostle has 
it, and treated, as ‘sinners.’”’ (Ch. xviii.) “This benefit did not so come 
upon all men as to relieve them immediately from the sentence of 
death. As this is the case with adults, so, for this reason, it did not come 
immediately upon children, whether they die in infancy or not.” (Ch. 
xviii.) “The guilt of Adam’s sin is charged upon his whole posterity.” 
(Ch. xxiii.) 

3. In the next place, we notice some of the difficulties connected with 
the doctrine of the perfect innocence of infants, which doctrine has, 
indeed, been the fountain of many of the most pernicious heresies in 
the successive ages of the Church. 

1. It avows the principle that the stream is more perfect than the 
fountain whence it emanates. That we derive our nature, compound 
as it is, by descent, or natural generation, from Adam, all must admit. 
Adam, previously to this, had fallen; his nature was sinful and guilty; 
but if he imparted an innocent nature to his posterity, the stream must 
rise in perfection above its fountain. This not only involves an absurd- 
ity, but an express contradiction of the word of God; for we there read: 
“Adam begat a son in his own likeness and after his image ;” consequently, 
if his nature was guilty, so must have been that of his descendants. 

2. It destroys the connection between cause and effect, and thus saps 


154 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B.2 


the foundation of all philosophy and reason. That death is the effect 
of sin and guilt, the Scriptures plainly declare. Now, if all guilt iy 
taken away from infants, the effect of guilt exists in their case without 
a cause; nor can it, on Bible principles, be accounted for. 

3. It overturns a radical and essential principle in the divine govern- 
ment—which is, that the guilty, and not the innocent, are proper sub- 
jects of legal punishment. Now, if infants are perfectly innocent, it 
follows, as they are legally punished with death, that the just principles 
of government are destroyed. 

+. It strikes at the foundation of the doctrine of redemption. For 
if infants are perfectly innocent, Christ came not to save them; he came 
“to save sinners.” 

I know that the effort has been made to counterbalance all these argu- 
. ments, by starting such objections as the following :— 

(1) It is said that brutes suffer death; and we are asked, Are they 
guilty? We reply, Most assuredly they are, in the sense of imputa- 
tion. On account of Adam’s sin, they suffer the forfeiture of their 
original state of happiness, and lie under the penalty of death; and 
this, according to the lexicographers and the tenor of Scripture, is 
guilt. 

(2) It is objected that justified, and even sanctified, Christians suffer 
death ; and we are asked, Are they, in any sense of the word, guilty? 
We reply, Yes. They may be justified, and even sanctified, in the Spirit, 
but sin and guilt attach to the body as well as the soul. Soul and body 
were united in the transgression, and upon this compound nature the 
penalty fell. It is guilt that will slay the body in death, and confine it 
in the tomb. From this part of the sentence of condemnation the 
resurrection alone can free us. This is one sense in which Christ was 
“raised again for our justification.” 

(3) It is objected that it is absurd to say that an individual not actu- 
ally guilty, should be made so, in view of the law, for the act of 
another. To which we reply, that it is no more absurd than that he 
should be made a sinner for the act of another; and the Scripture affirms 
that “by the offense of one, many were made sinners.” This might appear 
alsurd and unjust, were it disconnected with redemption, but such is 
a. improper view; for had it not been for the provisions of redemp- 
tion, none but the first unfortunate pair ever could have had a personal 
existence. 

(4) It is objected that “although infants would be guilty, independent 
of redemption, yet Christ has removed their guilt, and they are all born 
innocent, by virtue of his atonement.” 


Ch. xiii.) DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 155 


This objection has great weight with some, and, at first view, appears 
quite plausible; but upon close inspection it will vanish. What can 
this objection mean? “Infants would be guilty, independent of redemp- 
tion.” Strange, indeed! Independent of redemption, they never could 
nave existed; and who can comprehend a guilty nonentity? If they 
were only guilty as they existed seminally in Adam, then were they only 
redeemed as they existed seminally in Adam; for none but sinners 
needed redemption. According to this, it would follow that, after all, 
none were redeemed but the first pair; for none others were involved in 
the guilt. 

But if it still be urged that “the atonement has removed the guilt of 
infants,” we simply ask, Has the atonement removed that which never 
existed? If infants are not, and never have been, guilty, it is clear that 
their guilt never could have been removed. The apostle does not say, 
“By one man’s disobedience many” would have been made sinners, had 
it not been for the atonement; but he says, “Many were made sinners.” 
Now, if it be said that they were only made sinners seminally, as they 
existed in Adam, we reply, that in the same sense they all disobeyed in 
Adam. Hence, according to this theory, the apostle should have said, 
(to have spoken intelligibly,) either, By one man’s disobedience, one 
man was made a sinner, or, By the disobedience of many, many were 
made sinners. If it was only seminally that they were made sinners, 
seminally they actually disobeyed; and thus, according to this notion. 
the number that disobeyed was precisely equal to the number made sin- 
ners; and thus the apostle’s beautiful argument is reduced to nonsense. 
To maintain a darling theory, must we be required to make such havoc 
with Scripture? 

Again, look at Rom. v. 18: “By the offense of one, judgment came 
upon all men to condemnation.” Can any believe that the apostle was 
here teaching us that all men were only condemned seminally, as they 
existed in Adam? If the condemnation was only theirs seminally, the 
offense also was theirs seminally, and it is nonsense to say of the 
“offense” that it was “by one man,” but of the “condemnation,” that 
it was “upon all men;” for, according to this theory, “all men” offended 
in the same sense in which they were condemned. 

The atonement, as such, made no sinner immediately and absolutely 
righteous. The blood of Christ does not apply itself to the soul of 
man. It is the office of the Holy Spirit to “take of the things of Christ, 
and show them unto us.” By the atonement of Christ, the “free gift” 
comes upon “all men,” not to justify them immediately and uncondi- 
tionally, but im order to justification of life—that is, the provision is 


156 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i B.2 


made, the blood has been shed, and, according to God’s plan, the Spirit 
applies it to the justification, not of those who always have been right- 
eous, but of the ungodly. The adult is justified by faith when he is 
born again. The infant is not required to believe; but if it die in 
infancy, the Spirit of God can create it anew, and fully justify and 
prepare it for heaven. 

Special attention should be given to the scope of the apostle’s argu- 
ment in the fifth chapter to the Romans. It runs thus: Death passes 
upon all men; therefore all are guilty; and if all are thus seen to be 
guilty, he draws the conclusion that all alike need redemption, and that 
the “free gift has come” alike upon “all.” If his argument proves 
all men to be sinners at all, it proves them to be such at the time death 
passes upon them. Hence it is plain that the notion that infants are 
made perfectly innocent through Christ, before they were ever made 
guilty, or before they existed, or as soon as they began to exist, is both 
absurd and unscriptural. 

Finally, we remark, if infants are only saved from becoming guilty 
sinners through Christ, then he is not their Redeemer from sin, but only 
a preventer. He does not deliver from disease, but only stands in the 
way to prevent its approach. 

If infants are not by nature guilty, under the sentence of the divine 
law, then it will follow that justification may be by works; (which is 
contrary to the apostle’s doctrine;) for the evangelical obedience under 
the gospel is not such as is impossible to be complied with; and if it be 
possible to comply with the evangelical requirements of the gospel, then, 
as there is no previous charge or ground of condemnation, it is possible 
for an individual to be justified by his own works. 

If it be attempted to evade this by saying that infants were guilty, 
but that Christ has removed that condemnation, so that they are born 
in a justified state; to this we reply, How can any thing be affirmed or 
denied of that which has no existence? What kind of a condemnation 
is that which is pronounced against a being which never had any exist- 
ence? and what kind of a justification is that which implies the removal 
of condemnation from a being which does not and never did exist? 
Indeed, such a supposititious condemnation and justification are absurd. 
For, if the being condemned had no existence at the time, the condem- 
nation could have had no existence; for no attribute, quality, or con- 
dition, can exist separate from the thing of which it is affirmed. And 
if the condemnation had no existence, the justification which removed 
it could have had no existence. Thus it appears that the notion that 
infants were condemned and justified both, before they had any exist- 


oh. xiii.) DEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 157 


ence, and that consequently they are born in a justified state, is an 
absurd fiction. 

But if it still be insisted that Christ redeems infants from the sin and 
guilt which they would have inherited from Adam but for the atone- 
ment, then it follows that Christ is only an imaginary Saviour, effecting 
imaginary redemption for imaginary sinners; and thus the whole scheme 
is reduced to a farce, and the very atonement itself is uprooted, and 
shown to be imaginary! We choose rather to abide by the plain Serip- 
ture, and look upon this notion of the perfect innocence of infants, and 
deliverance from guilt that never existed, as obviously untenable. 

Another theory, somewhat different from any we have named, has 
been advocated by a few reputable Arminian divines. It has been 
espoused by Dr. F. G. Hibbard in his recent treatise on “The Religion 
of Childhood.” So far as we can perceive, this theory takes the scrip- 
tural view of the doctrine of depravity in the abstract—admitting it te 
be both total and hereditary. 

This theory, in reference to the moral state of infants, is so nearly 
related to Pelagianism, that it is difficult to discern wherein they substan: 
tially differ. It teaches that all infants, at the first moment of their exist- 
ence, are freed from all sin and guilt, and made partakers of regene 
ration. 

Pelagius taught that the moral state of infants is the same with that of 
Adam before the Fall—that is, that infants inherit no corruption or 
guilt from Adam, but are born as sinless and holy as he was when first 
created. The theory to which we now refer, differs from Pelagian- 
ism, in that it admits that all infants inherit guilt and corruption 
from Adam; but avers that the atonement of Christ is so imme- 
diately applied to them that, at the first moment of their existence, all 
that sin and pollution are removed, so that they are holy and regene- 
rate as soon as they begin to exist. 

Thus, it seems to us, that while this theory differs greatly from Pela- 
gianism, because it attributes the gracious state of infants to the atone 
ment of Christ, yet it so harmonizes with the Pelagian theory con- 
cerning the moral state of infants, that, in that particular, there is 
scarce a shade of difference between them. This theory does not 
exactly teach, like Pelagianism, that infants are born pure and sinless; 
but that they are so constituted at the first moment of their existence— 
that is, though they derive from their connection with Adam condem- 
nation and death, yet, by reason of the atonement, the entire maledic- 
tion of the Fall is removed from them—as Dr. Hibbard expresses it, 
“coincident with the date of existence—at the moment they become 


158 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.2 


human.” Hence it appears that on this point the theory in question 
differs from Pelagianism only by the measure of a moment—an instant 
of time! Of what avail for good or evil can be that native guilt and 
depravity which, the moment they come upon, or are about to come 
upon, the infant, are removed? How can native depravity, under such 
circumstances, tend to corrupt the heart or vitiate the life? And, on 
this point, how can the theory in question maintain longer than a sin- 
gle moment any vantage-ground over Pelagianism? 

Again, this theory, to our mind, involves a palpable self-contradiction. 
It maintains that all infants are involved in condemnation for Adam’s 
ain, but that this condemnation is removed as soon as they begin to 
exist. Now, we ask, how can they be condemned before they exist? 
Or how can that be removed which never existed? If infants inherit 
a depraved and guilty nature, it cannot be before they have a nature, 
nor can they possess a nature before they have an existence. And if, 
at the first moment of their existence, they are perfectly innocent and 
regenerate through Christ, when were they condemned and unregenerate 
through Adam? Was it before they had an existence? If so, what 
conception are we to form of a condemned, unregenerate nonentity? 

It has been argued by the advocates of the theory we here oppose, 
that “if the grace and gift of righteousness are only a title to life, and 
not a present personal inception of life, then also, by the conditions of 
the argument and the law of antithesis upon which it rests, the death 
spoken of (Rom. v.) must be only a liability of death—a death in pros- 
pect-—not a personal present fact and experience.” To this we reply, 
that if the antithesis of the apostle requires that, because the death is 
real, personal, and experimental, so must be the life; then, upon the 
same mode of reasoning, if the life is real, personal, and experimental, 
so must be the death. But, according to the theory, where shall we find 
the real, personal, and experimental death from which infants are deliv- 
ered by the atonement? The theory gives them the “life” in question 
as soon as they exist—the moment they become human. When did they 
have personal experience of the antithetic “death?” Was it before 
they had an existence? This hypothesis is absurd. Was it after they 
had existence, and before they had life? This is impossible, according 
to the theory, for it teaches that they possess the antithetic “life” the 
first moment of their existence. Could they personally experience this 
“life” and “death” (antithetically opposed to each other) at the same 
moment? This would be a contradiction. Hence, according to the 
very reasoning brought to sustain the theory, it is plainly overthrown. 
For if the “life,” the perfect innocence, the regeneration, possessed hy 


Ch. xin.) LEPRAVITY—OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 159 


the infant the first moment of its existence, is a real, personal, expert 
mental realization, so must be the “death” from which it is a deliver. 
ance. If the one is a personal experience, the other cannot be supposed 
to have only a conceptual existence. 

Again, Dr. Hibbard says (page 121): “The justification covers all 
the condemned, and reverses the ‘judgment’ which stands against us 
at the first moment, when it would otherwise take effect.” 

Here is a plain admission that, according to this theory, the atone 
ment of Christ only delivers the infant world, not from actual, eaperi- 
mental, personal death, but from conceptual death—that is, it is a real, 
actual salvation from ideal, imaginary, or conceptual evil. ‘The reversed 
judgment had not actually taken effect. It is reversed “at the first 
moment, when it would otherwise take effect.” 

Once more: the theory under review, while it admits in words the 
doctrine of native depravity, does, in effect, set it aside. The advocates 
of the theory admit that, “had it not been for mediatorial interposition, 
no child of Adam would have been born, and the consequences of the first 
transgression would have terminated on the first guilty pair.’ From 
this it follows that we are indebted to the atonement for our very being, 
and all our faculties of whatever kind. Hence it must be admitted 
that if perfect innocence and regeneration belong to our nature, as soon 
as we have a nature, (as the theory teaches,) they must belong to that 
nature as soon as do the faculties of sight and hearing, or any native 
faculty we possess. And if these faculties or qualities—sight, hearing, 
innocence, regeneration—all flow through the atonement, and come to 
us at the same time—as soon as we exist—why is not the one as natural 
as the others? If we are by nature possessed of sight and hearing, are 
we not by nature possessed of perfect innocence and regeneration? If 
all begin as soon as we possess a nature, and flow from the same source, 
how can any of them be acquired or superinduced? Are they not all 
equally natural? And if so, are we not as naturally innocent and regen- 
erate beings as we are hearing, seeing, breathing, or living beings? 
Hence, how can we be naturally sinful and unholy? In other worda, 
how can the doctrine of native human depravity be true? We do not 
charge the advocates of the theory here opposed with denying the 
doctrine of man’s native depravity. They intend no such thing. We 
only advance the opinion that their theory and the doctrine of the 
native depravity of human nature are logically irreconcilable. 

Thus have we endeavored to show that the doctrine of innate total 
depravity, as connected with the character of infants, is consistent wits 
the nature of the divine administration. 


160 


at Om 


_ In what does 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


(P.i 1.2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIII. 
Question 1. What are the different the- 


ories presented in reference to in- 
fants? 
Who have advocated the first? 


. The second? 

. The third? 

. The fourth? 

. The fifth? 

. The sixth? 

. Which theory best accords with the 


Bible? 


_ In what does the sixth differ from 


the fourth? 
it differ from the 
fifth? 


. Who have believed in the destruc- 


tion of infants? 


. From what quotations is this made to 


appear? 


_ What is the proof that all infants 


will be saved? 
What, is the definition of guilt and 
justificatior * 


15 


22. 


23 


. What scriptures are brought to prove 
the native guilt of infants? 

. From what divines are quotations 
brought? 

. What are the four difficulties named 
in reference to the doctrine of the 
perfect innocence of infants? 

_ In what way are brutes referred to, 
in objecting to the doctrine of the 
guilt of infants? 

_ How is this objection answered? 

_ How is the objection answered in 
reference to the death of justified 
and sanctified Christians? 

. How is the objection, that it is ab- 
surd to make the innocent guilty 
for the act of another, answered? 

How is the objection, that the guilt 
of infantis has already been re- 
moved through the atonement, an- 
swered? 

. What scripture is used in answering 

this obiectiun ? 


um. uv! THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. tf) 


CHAPTER XIV. 


THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 


TuE suoject now before us—the moral agency of man—is one of great 
mterest and importance. It has been said by an excellent writer, that 
“The proper study of mankind is man.” If this is true, as it unques- 
tionably is, when the terms are understood to relate to the true charac- 
ter, moral relations, and eternal destiny of man, it is likewise true that 
no question ever agitated in relation to man can be of greater interest 
than the one now proposed—his proper moral agency. 

This subject has elicited a large amount of philosophical research 
from the most acute metaphysicians in every age of the world, from the 
earliest date of philosophical science to the present day. It has pre- 
sented an arena on which the master-spirits have met, and wielded with 
their utmost skill the keenest lauce of polemic strife; but perhaps the 
most that has been written on the subject has tended rather to involve 
the matter in a maze of metaphvsical intricacy, than to present the 
simple truth in a plain light. Cculd the public mind be disabused 
respecting the influence of the fine-spun theories, metaphysical reason- 
ings, and endless quibbles of speculative minds, in reference to free 
will, moral agency, fixed fate, and philosophical necessity, it might be 
possible, in a small compass, to present a clear and satisfactory view 
of the subject in hand. As it is, we cannot feel that we have rendered 
merited justice without some examination of the various conflicting 
systems and puzzling sophisms which have been so ingeniously invented, 
and so liberally and tenaciously urged. We shall, however, in as clear 
a method as we can, endeavor to exhibit and defend what we con- 
ceive to be the true philosophical and scriptural view of man’s moral 
agency. 

The numerous and formidable disputants on this subject may all be 
ranged in two grand divisions—the advocates of free agency, in the 
proper sense of the term, on one hand, and the defenders of the doctrine 
of necessity on the other. That we may conduct the investigation ina 
clear ant profitayle manner, great care will be requisite, in the outset, 


11 


162 ELEMENTS OF DIVINIIY. {P. 2. B. 2 


that the terms may be clearly defined, and the real points of difference 
correctly understood. 

I. First, then, we inquire, What is implied in the free moral agency 
of man? 

An agent means an actor. A moral agent means an actur whose 
actions relate to a rule of right and wrong. <A free moral agent means an 
actor whose actions relate to a rule of right and wrong, and who %s pos 
sessed of liberty, or freedom, in the performance of his actions. 

1. As regards the simple question of man’s agency, we presun.e there 
will be no controversy. It is not contended that man is an agent in the 
sense of absolute independency. In this sense, there is but one agent in 
the universe, and that is God. He only possesses the power of action, 
either physical or moral, in an underived and independent sense. Man, 
and all other created beings, derived this power from the great Creator, 
and are dependent on him for its continuance. Yet, in the exercise of 
derived power, they are capable of acting. In this respect, they are 
contradistinguished from senseless, inanimate matter, which can only 
move when acted upon by external force. The distinction here pre- 
sented is so clear and evident, that such as are either destitute of the 
capacity to perceive it, or of the fairness to acknowledge it, may at once 
be dismissed from the present investigation. 

2. That man is a moral agent, we think will also be admitted by all 
who believe in the truth of revelation. The actions of man relate to a 
rule of right and wrong. He is capable of virtue or vice, and susceptible 
of blame or praise. This, we suppose, all the advocates of necessity, 
who believe in the Scriptures, readily admit. 

3. The next point in the general definition which we have presented, 
relates to the freedom, or liberty, which man possesses in the performance 
of moral action. Here we find the main point of difference between 
the defenders of free agency and the advocates of necessity. The 
former contend that, in the exercise of his moral agency, man is 
not under the absolute necessity of acting as he does, but that he 
might act differently; while the latter contend that all the acts of man 
are necessary, in such sense that he cannot act differently from what 
he does. 

It is true, there is a great difference in the manner in which the advo 
cates of necessity choose to express themselves. Some of them, in 
words, acknowledge the free moral agency of man, and contend that he 
possesses freedom in the proper sense of the word. This is the ground 
assumed by President Edwards, of New Jersey, and his numerous 
adherents. But by this liberty or freedom they understand that map 


Ch, xiv.] THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 163 


merely has the power of acting according to his will, or, in other 
words, that he has the liberty “‘to do as he pleases.” This, they say, is 
freedom in the highest sense, and the only sense in which man can 
enjoy it. 

The definition of liberty, as given by Locke, in his famous “Essays 
on the Human Understanding,” is this: ‘‘Liberty is a power to act or 
not to act, according as the mind directs.”” Edwards defines it to be, 
“the power, opportunity, or advantage, that one has to do as he 
pleases.” It will readily be perceived that the meaning of liberty, 
as given by Locke and Edwards, is the same. On this subject, 
Edwards borrowed from Locke what the latter had borrowed from 
Hobbes. 

It is upon the above definition, with which Edwards sets out, that his 
entire system is based; and here, we would say, is the commencement 
of his grand mistake. He has unfortunately fallen into the common 
error of the fatalists of every school—that of confounding the liberty 
of the mind with the motion of the body. Indeed, the above is neither a 
correct definition of mental nor bodily freedom. It is rather a definition 
of bodily independence. The power “to act as the mind directs,’ or 
“to do as we please,” can relate only to bodily action. It presupposes 
a mental act—a determination of the will—but has nothing to do with 
the power producing that act or determination. Were we for a moment 
to suppose the definition of liberty above given to relate to mental 
action connected with the will, we could not vindicate the profound and 
learned Locke and Edwards from the charge of having gravely pre- 
sented as an important definition nothing but an insignificant truism. 
For, surely, to say that we may will “as the mind directs,” or “‘as we 
please,” is the same as to say we may will as we will. 

But that the aforesaid definition, even in the mind of Edwards, had 
nothing to do with our will, the following quotation will evince: “‘ What 
is vulgarly called liberty,” says Edwards, “namely, that power and 
opportunity fer one to do and conduct as he will, or accordinz to his 
choice, is all that is meant by it; without taking into the meaning of 
the word any thing of the cause of that choice, or at all considering 
how the person came to have such a volition. In whatever manner a 
person may come by his choice, yet, if he is able, and there is nothing 
in the way to hinder his pursuing and executing his will, the man is 
perfectly free, according to the primary and common notion of freedom.” 
From this we may see that the notion of liberty contended for by 
Edwards relates to bodily motion, and not to mental action, and is per- 
fectly consistent with the most absolute fatalism. 


164 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B. 2. 


Again: the definition of liberty, as given by Edwards, as it does not 
properly apply to mental action, so neither does it properly apply to the 
power of bodily action as possessed by man. If liberty, or freedom, 
tieans “the power to do as we please,” then none but Omnipotence can 
be free, for who else “can do as they please?” How Edwards could 
contend for the freedom of man, in his sense of freedom, is difficult to 
conceive; for surely a little reflection will show that, according to that 
definition, no man can be free. The subject may be illustrated thus: 
Suppose I see an individual exposed to imminent danger from the 
approach of an enemy, or from the burning of a house over his head. 
The feelings of humanity instantly lead me to will or desire to save him. 
I exert my utmost strength, but all in vain. Here I have not the power 
“to do as I please.” Hence, according to Edwards, in the above case, 
I cannot possibly be free. I know it may be said that my immediate 
will is not to save the man, but only to exert myself in that way, To 
this I reply, that such is evidently not the case. My prime and govern- 
ing will is to save him. This precedes, and is the cause of, my willing 
to put forth the exertions. Indeed, if I did not first will to save the 
mun, I never could will to put forth exertions to that effect. The 
instance already adduced may satisfy any one that no man has the 
power “to do as he pleases;” and that consequently, according to 
Edwards, no man possesses liberty. In this respect, we humbly conceive 
his definition of freedom implies too much. Freedom does not imply 
an ability “to do as we please.” 

But the definition of Edwards is defective in another sense. A man 
may have the power, in certain cases, “ to do as he pleases,” and yet not 
be free. I will illustrate this by a quotation from Mr. Locke: “Lib- 
erty cannot be where there is no thought, no volition, no will, ete. So 
a man striking himself or his friend by a convulsive motion of his arm 
which it is not in his power by volition, or the direction of his mind, to 
stop or forbear; nobody thinks he has liberty in this; every one pities 
him as acting by necessity and constraint. Again, there may be 
thought, there may be will, there may be volition, where there is ne 
liberty. Suppose a man be carried, while fast asleep, into a room where 
is a person he longs to see, and there be locked fast in beyond his power 
to get out; he awakes, and is glad to see himself in so desirable com- 
pany, in which he stays so willingly—that is, he prefers his staying to 
going away. Is not this stay voluntary? I think nobody will doubt 
it; and yet, being locked fast in, he is not at liberty to stay, he has not 
freedom to be gone.” The example here given by Locke clearly shows 
that a man may “do as he pleases” while he is fast bound in fetters, 


Ch. xiv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 163 


and can act in no other way. Consequently, in that case, he cannot 
enjoy liberty, unless we confound all language, and say that liberty is 
synonymous with bondage or necessity. 

We shall now present a view of freedom taken by Arminian philoso- 
phers and divines, which we conceive to be far more consistent with 
reason and common sense. 

1. By a free agent is understood one capable of acting without being 
necessitated, or efficiently caused to do so, by something else; and he 
who has this power is properly possessed of liberty. 

2. God is a free agent. It is admitted that God only existed from 
eternity. Now, as creation was produced by the act of God, when as 
yet nothing existed but him, it necessarily follows that he acted uncaused 
by any thing extrinsic to himself; hence he is a free agent in the sense 
just given. 

3. To say that any thing is uncaused, in the proper sense of the word, 
except God, who only is eternal, is unphilosophical and absurd. 

4, Volition in man not being eternal, must be the effect of some 
cause—that is, it must result from some power capable of producing it. 
To say that it is uncaused, or that it is the cause of itself, is absurd. 

5. That an agent may act without being efficiently caused to do so 
by something extrinsic to itself, cannot be denied without denying to 
God the original power of producing creation. 

6. The position, that every act of volition must necessarily be either 
the effect of an external efficient cause, or the effect of a previous act 
of volition, cannot be sustained without denying that God could origi- 
nally have produced creation out of nothing. Before he could have 
exerted creating power, he must have willed to do so; and as nothing 
then existed but himself, that will could not have been the effect of any 
external efficient cause, but must have been the operation of his own 
self-active nature. And to deny that God could have created beings 
endued with self-active power, (in this respect in his own image,) is to 
deny his omnipotence. 

7. The great question on the subject of free agency is, whether man 
is capable of self-action or not—not whether he can act independent of 
God or not, but whether, in the exercise of the power with which God 
has endued him, he is capable of acting without being necessitated, or 
efficiently caused to do so, by any thing extrinsic to himself. 

8. If man be endued with self-active power, then he is a free agent, 
and properly the author of his own acts; but if he is not thus endued, 
he is only a passive machine—as really such as any material substance 
ean be —no more the author of his actions than a stock or a stone. 


166 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i.B.2 


In entering upon the discussion of the question of free agency, it is 
important, in the first place, not only to ascertain clearly the precise 
matter of dispute, but also to understand the peculiar sense in which 
any ambiguous terms which custom may have employed in the contro- 
versy are used. In addition to the definitions and general principles 
already presented, we think it necessary to premise a few things relative 
to certain terms in general use by writers on this subject. First, we 
remark, in reference to the term free will, that it is not philosophically 
accurate. Strictly speaking, the will is not an agent, but only an attri- 
bute or property of an agent; and, of course, freedom, which is also 
the property of an agent, cannot be properly predicated of the will. 
Attributes belong to agents or substances, and not to qualities. Never- 
theless, the sense in which the term free will is understood, in this con- 
nection, is so clear, that we think it would rather savor of affectation to 
attempt to lay it aside. The mind, or soul, of man is the active, intel- 
ligent agent to whom pertain the powers or qualities of freedom and 
volition; and the will is only the mind acting in a specific way, or it is 
the power of the mind to act, or not to act, in a specific way. 

On this point the writers generally, on both sides in the controversy, 
have been agreed. President Day says: “It is the man that perceives, 
and loves, and hates, and acts; not his understanding, or his heart, or 
his will, distinct from himself.” 

Professor Upham defines the will to be “the mental power or suscep- 
tibility by which we put forth volitions.” He also says: “The term 
will is not meant to express any thing separate from the mind; but 
merely embodies and expresses the fact of the mind’s operating in a 
particular way.” Stewart defines the will to be “that power of the mind 
of which volition is the act.” 

We farther remark, that although volition is, in one sense, an effect, 
yet it is not the passive result of an extrinsic force acting so as to pro- 
duce it. It is the action of the mind, uncaused by any thing external 
acting efficiently on the mind. It depends simply on the exercise of 
those powers with which man has been endued, and which have been 
placed under his control by the Creator. 

The great question in this controversy is not whether a man can will 
“as he pleases,” for that is the same as to ask whether he can will as he 
does will. But the question is, Can a man will, without being constrained 
to will as he does, by something extrinsic to himself acting efficiently upon 
him? This is the real question on which depends the freedom of the 
mind in willing. 

Again: when we speak of a self-active power of man in willing, we 


Cr. xiv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 167 


are not to understand that this is a /awless exercise of power. The mind 
is the efficient agent that wills, but this act is performed according to 
the laws properly belonging to a self-moving, accountable agent. Mo- 
tives and external circumstances, although they can exercise no active 
or efficient agency in reference to the will, yet, speaking figuratively, 
they are properly said to exercise an influence over the mind—that is, 
they are the conditions or occasions of the mind’s action in willing. In 
this sense, they may be said to influence the will; but this is so far from 
being an absolute and irresistibly controlling influence, that it is really 
uo proper or efficient influence at all. 

The advocates of necessity, in their arguments upon this subject, have 
generally either not understood, or they have willfully misstated, the 
ground assumed by their opponents. They have generally reasoned 
ipon the assumption that there is no medium between absolute necessity 
snd perfect independency. Whereas the true doctrine in reference to 
‘he freedom of the will, and that assumed by the proper, defenders of 
‘ree agency, is equally aloof from both these extremes. By moral lib- 
‘ty, we neither understand, on the one hand, that the actions of man 
ire so determined by things external to him, as to be bound fast with 
she cords of necessity; nor, on the other hand, so disconnected with 
surrounding circumstances, and every thing external, as to be entirely 
‘ininfluenced thereby. 

The controversy, therefore, between the advocates of necessity and 
Arminians, or the defenders of free agency, is not whether man is in- 
Auenced in his will, to any extent, by circumstances, motives, etc., or 
aot; but whether his will is thus absolutely and necessarily controlled, so 
that it could not possibly be otherwise. If the will of man be absolutely 
and unconditionally fixed by motives and external causes, so that 
it is obliged to be as it is, then is the doctrine of necessity, as contended 
for by Edwards and others, true; but if the will might, in any case, be 
different from what it is, or if it is to any extent dependent on the self- 
controlling power with which man is endued, then is the free moral 
agency of man established, and the whole system of philosophical neces- 
sity falls to the ground. 

II. We proceed now to consider some of the leading arguments by 
wich the free moral agency of man, as briefly defined above, is established, 

1. We rely upon our own consciousness. 

By consciousness, we mean the knowledge we have of what passes 
within our own minds. Thus, when we are angry, we are sensible of 
the existence of that feeling within us. When we are joyful or sad, 
we know it. When we love or hate, remember or fear, we are imme 


168 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [pP. 1. B.3 


diately sensible of the fact. The knowledge we possess cf this nature 
is not the result of reasoning; it is not derived from an investigation 
of testimony, but rises spontaneously in the mind. On subjects of this 
kind, arguments are superfluous ; for, in reference to things of which we 
are conscious, no reasoning, or external testimony, can have any influ- 
ence, either to strengthen our convictions, or to cause us to doubt. In 
vain may we endeavor by argument to persuade the man who feels cun- 
scious that his heart is elated with joy, that he is, at the same time, 
depressed with grief. You cannot convince the sick man, who is racked 
with pain, that he is in the enjoyment of perfect health; nor the man 
who exults in the vigor of health and vivacity, that he is writhing 
under the influence of a painful disease. 

Knowledge derived through the medium of consciousness, like that 
which comes immediately through external sensation, carries upon its 
face its own demonstration; and so strongly does it impress the soul, 
that we are compelled to yield ourselves up to the insanity of universal 
skepticism before we can doubt it fora moment. Here, then, we base 
our first argument for the proper freedom of the will of man, or, more 
properly speaking, for the freedom of man in the exercise of the will. 
Who can convince me that I have not the power either to write or to 
refrain from writing, either to sit still or to rise up and walk? And this 
conviction, in reference to a self-determining power of the mind, or a 
control of the will belonging to ourselves, is universal. Philosophy, 
falsely so called, may puzzle the intellect, or confuse the understanding, 
but still the conviction comes upon every man with resistless force, that 
he has within himself the power of choice. He feels that he exercises 
this power. 

We know the advocates of necessity admit that men generally, at 
first view of the subject, suppose that they are not necessitated in their 
volitions, but they assert that this is an illusion which the superior light 
of philosophy will dissipate. An acute metaphysician has advanced the 
idea, “that when men only skim the surface of philosophy, they dis- 
card common sense; but when they go profoundly into philosophic 
research, they return again to their earliest dictates of common sense.” 
In the same way, a. mere peep into philosophy has caused many, espe- 
cially such as are predisposed to skepticism, to assert the doctrine of 
fatality; but a thorough knowledge of true philosophy generally 
serves to establish our first convictions that we are free in our yoli- 
tions. Can that philosophy be sound, or that reasoning correct, 
which would set aside the strongest testimony of our own senses? 
which would persuade us that it is midnight when we behold the full 


Ch. xiv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 168 


blaze of the meridian sun? No more can we accredit that mode cf rea: 
soning which would uproot the testimony of our own consciousness. 

That, in my volitions, I am free to choose good or evil, and not 
impelled by a necessity as absolute as the laws of gravitation, is a posi- 
tion which I can no more doubt from my own consciousness than I can 
doubt my own existence. This is evident from the fact that all men 
have a sense of blame when they do wrong, and of approbation when 
they do right. Am I charged with the commission of a crime?—convince 
me that the force of circumstances rendered its avoidance absolutely 
impossible, and I can no more blame myself in the premises than I can 
vensure the tree that fell upon the traveler as he was journeying on the 
highway. Remorse for the past depends upon a consciousness of our 
freedom for its very existence. This conviction of freedom is so indel- 
ible and universal on the minds of men, that no human effort can erase 
it. It may be smothered or obscured for a season in the minds of 
sophisticated reasoners, but in the hours of sober honesty it will regain 
its position, and reiissert its dominion, even over the minds of such 
men as Voltaire, Hume, and Edwards, who have discarded it in their 
philosophy. 

2. Our next argument for the self-determining power of the mind over 
the will is founded upon the history of the world in general. 

Turn your attention to any portion or to any period of the world’s 
history, and you find among all nations, in their very language and 
common modes of speech, terms and phrases expressive of the power 
which all men possess of determining, or being the authors of their own 
wills. You will find men speaking of the acts of their minds and the 
determinations of their wills as though they were free. And you will 
uso find terms expressive of blame and of praise, clearly recognizing 
the principle that when a man does wrong he is blamed, because he 
might and should have avoided the wrong. In all countries it is a fact 
that, in public estimation, a man’s guilt is extenuated in proportion as the 
impediments in the way of avoiding the crime are increased; and upon 
the same principle, when the difficulties in the way of avoiding the act 
are absolutely insurmountable, no one is then blamed for doing the una- 
vcidable act. 

Again: the laws of all civilized nations punish the criminal upon the 
supposition that he might have avoided the crime. And if it could be 
made appear that, in the act in question, the man was not a self-will- 
ing agent, but was only a tool used by the force of others whieh 
he had not the power to resist, in this case, there is not a government 
upon earth that would not as readily punish the sword of the assas 


170 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.cBes- 


sin as that man who was merely a passive instrument, having no power 
to resist. 

Why, we might ask, are rewards and punishments connected with the 
statutory provisions of all countries, and held out before the community, 
if it be not to encourage to virtue and to deter from vice? And why 
should these sanctions he exhibited to the subjects of all civilized gov- 
ernments, if men have no power to influence their own wills? Will 
you exhibit motives and inducements to excite them to endeavor to 
control their wills, when they really possess no such power? I know it 
may be said that these motives are designed to fix, by a necessary and 
invincible influence, the will itself, independent of any active agency in 
the man. Nothing can be more absurd and contrary to fact than such 
a supposition. If motives are to fix the character of the will neces- 
sarily, why is the man called upon to attend to the motives, to weigh 
them carefully, and make a correct decision in reference to their real 
weight ? 

A farther consideration of the doctrine of motives will be assigned 
to another chapter. Under the present head we only add that all men, 
in all ages and in all places, have treated each other as though they 
believed they were free agents. If we discard this doctrine, and assert 
the principles of necessity, we must change universal customs which 
have stood from time immemorial, and rend the very foundations of soci- 
ety. If man be not a free agent, why is he held bound for the fulfillment 
of his promise, and censured in the failure thereof? Why is he held up 
as an object of scorn and detestation for any crime under heaven? 

Why, we might ask, are jails and penitentiaries, and various modes 
of punishment, more or less severe, everywhere prevalent in civilized 
lands? If the advocates of necessity really believe in the truth of 
their system, let them be consistent, and go throughout the civilized 
world and plead for the destruction of all terms of language expressive 
of blaine or praise; let them decry the unjustifiable prejudice of 
nations, by which benevolence and virtue have been applauded, and 
selfishness and vice contemned. Let them proclaim it abroad, that the 
robber and the murderer are as innocent as the infant or the saint, since 
all men only act as they are necessarily acted upon; and let them teach 
all nations to abolish at once and forever every description of punish- 
ment for crime or misdemeanor. Such would be the consistent course 
for sincere necessitarians. 

3. Our third evidence of man’s proper free agency is founded upon 
the divine administration toward him, 43 exhibited in the Holy Serip 
fures. 


Uh. xiv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 171 


Here we shall perceive that revelation beautifully harmonizes with 
nature; and those clear and decisive evidences of our free agency, which, 
as we have seen, are derived from experience and observation, are 
abundantly confirmed by the book of God. 

(1) We see this, first, in contemplation of the condition in which man 
was placed immediately after his creation. A moral law was given him to 
keep, and a severe penalty annexed to its transgression. Upon the 
supposition that man was not made a free agent, God must have known 
it; and if so, under these circumstances to have given him a moral law 
for the government of his actions, would have been inconsistent with 
the divine wisdom; for a moral law, commanding what is right and pro- 
hibiting what is wrong, can only be adapted to beings capable of doing 
both right and wrong. 

Suppose, when the Almighty created man capable of walking erect 
upon the earth, but incapable of flying in the air like the fowls of 
heaven, he had given him a law forbidding him to walk, and command- 
ing him to fly, every intelligent being would at once perceive the folly 
of such a statute. And wherefore? Simply because man has no power 
to fly, and therefore to command him to do so must be perfectly useless. 
But suppose, in addition to the command requiring an impossibility, the 
severest penalty had been annexed to its violation, the administration 
would not only be charged with folly, but it would be stamped with 
cruelty of the deepest dye. Suppose again, that, circumstanced as man 
was in his creation, the law of God had commanded him to breathe the 
surrounding atmosphere, and to permit the blood to circulate in his veins, 
and a glorious promise of reward had been annexed to obedience. In 
this case, also, the law would universally be pronounced an evidence of 
folly in the Lawgiver; and why so? Because obedience flows naturally 
from the constitution of man. He can no more avoid it than a leaden 
ball let loose from the hand can avoid the influence of gravitation. In 
the former supposition, obedience was impossible, for man can no more 
fly than he can create a world; in the latter, disobedience is impossible, 
for man can no more prevent the circulation of his blood than he can 
stop the sun in his course. But in both cases the administration is 
marked with folly. Thus it is seen that a moral law can only be given 
to a being capable of both right and wrong. Hence, as God gave man 
a moral law for the government of his actions, he must have been a free 
moral agent, capable alike of obedience and of disobedience. 

We think it impossible for the unbiased mind to read the history of 
the creation and fall of man, and not feel that in that case God treated 
him ag a free moral agent. Upon the supposition that the will, and all 


172 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.2 


the actions of man, are necessarily determined by the operation of causes 
over which he has no control, (according to the principles of necessity,) 
the administration of God, in the history of the fall of man, is repre- 
sented as more silly and cruel than ever disgraced the reign of the mean- 
est earthly tyrant! Against the administration of the righteous Gov- 
ernor of the universe, shall such foul charges be brought? Forbid it, 
reason! Forbid it, truth! Forbid it, Scripture! 

Can a rational man believe that God would so constitute Adam in 
paradise as to make his eating of the forbidden fruit result as necessarily 
from his unavoidable condition as any effect from its cause, and then, 
with a pretense of justice, and a claim to goodness, say, “In the day 
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die”? Surely, most surely, not. 
The whole history of the Fall, in the light of reason, of common sense, 
and in view of all that we know of the divine character and govern- 
ment, proclaims, in language clear and forcible, the doctrine of man’s 
free moral agency. 

Milton has most beautifully commented upon this subject, supposing 
God to speak in reference to man: 


“T made him just and right; 
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall. 

Such I created all the ethereal powers— 
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell. 
Not free, what proof could they have given sincere 
Of true allegiance, constant faith, or love, 
Where only what they needs must do appeared, 
Not what they would? What praise could they receive? 
What pleasure I, from such obedience paid, 
When will and reason, (reason also is choice,) 
Useless and vain, of ‘freedom both despoiled, 
Made passive both, had served necessity, 
Not me? They therefore, as to right belonged, 
So were created 
So, without least impulse or shadow of fate, 
Or aught by me immutably foreseen, 
They trespass; authors to themselves in all 
Both what they judge, and what they choose; for so 
I formed them free; and free they must remain, 
Till they enthrall themselves. I else must change 
Their nature, and reverse the high decree, 
Unchangeable, eternal, which ordained 
Their freedom; they themselves ordained their fall.” 


(2) In the next place, the Scriptures everywhere address man as @ 
being capable of choosing; as possessing a control over his own voli- 


Oh. xiv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 178 


tions, and as being held responsible for the proper exercise cf that 
control. 

In Deut. xxx. 19, we read: “I call heaven and earth to record this 
day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and 
cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” 
And in Joshua xxiv. 15: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve.” 
Now, to choose is to determine or fix the will; but men are here called 
upon to choose for themselves, which, upon the supposition that their 
will is, in all cases, fixed necessarily by antecedent causes beyond their 
control, is nothing better than solemn mockery. 

Our Saviour, in Matt. xxiii. 37, complains of the Jews: “ How often 
would T have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth 
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Again, in John 
v. 40, our Lord says: “Ye will not come to me, that ye might have 
life.” 

These, and numerous other passages of a similar import, refer ex- 
pressly to the will of men as being under their own control. And to put 
the matter beyond dispute, men are here not only held responsible for 
the character of their will, but they are actually represented as justly 
punishable on that account. In the instance of Christ lamenting over 
Jerusalem, and complaining, “How often would I have gathered,” 
etc., “and ye would not,” the punishment is announced in the words 
which immediately follow: “Behold your house is left unto you deso- 
late.” Now, the question is, can the Saviour of the world, in terms of 
the deepest solemnity, upbraid men for the obstinacy of their wills, and 
denounce against them the severest punishment for the same, if the 
whole matter is determined by necessity, and no more under their con- 
trol than the revolutions of the planets? According to the notion of 
President Edwards and others, the will is as necessarily fixed by ante- 
cedent causes as any effect whatever is by its appropriate cause. If so, 
the agency of man can have no influence in determining his will, and 
consequently he cannot in justice be held accountable and punishable 
for the same. But as we have shown the Scriptures hold man account- 
able and punishable for his will, consequently it cannot be determined 
by necessity, but must be, in the true sense, dependent on man’s own 
proper agency. 

(3) In the last place, we argue the proper freedom of the human will 
from the doctrine of a general judgment, and future rewards and punish 
ments, as set forth in the Scriptures. 

Here we need not enlarge. That all men are responsible to God for 
all the determinations of their will, and that in a future day they will 


174 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B. 2 


le judged, and rewarded or punished accordingly, are matters expressly 
taught in the Scriptures. Now, according to the necessitarian scheme, 
how, we ask, can these things be reconciled with the divine attri- 
butes? As well might we suppose that an all-wise and merciful Being 
would arraign before his bar, and punish, or reward, the water for 
running downward, or the sparks for flying upward. As well might 
he punish the foot because it is not the hand, or the hand because 
it is not the eye. As well might he reward or punish the fish for 
swimming in the sea, or the birds for flying in the air! If such a 
procedure would universally be pronounced absurd in the extreme, 
we ask, upon the supposition that the will of man is determined by 
antecedent or external causes, as necessarily as the laws of nature, 
where is the difference? Every argument that would show absurdity 
in the one case, would, in all fairness, show the same in the other, 

(4) In conclusion, upon this part of the subject, we think it proper 
briefly to notice the absurdity of attempting to reconcile the doctrines of 
necessity with the proper freedom and accountability of man. 

This, President Edwards and many others have labored hard to 
accomplish, They have contended that, although the will is irresistibly 
fixed by necessity, yet man is properly a free and accountable moral 
agent, merely because he has a will, acts voluntarily, and is not, by 
natural force, constrained to go contrary to his will. The names by 
which things are called cannot, in the least, alter their nature. Hence, 
to load man with the ennobling epithets of moral agency, freedom, 
liberty, accountability, ete., while we bind him fast with the cords of 
necessity, can never tend in the least to slacken those cords, or to mend 
his condition. 

To say that a man enjoys freedom merely because he has liberty to 
obey his will, when that will is fixed by necessity, is as absurd as to 
contend that a man enjoys freedom in a civil sense merely because he 
is at liberty to obey the laws under which he is placed, when those laws 
are enacted by a cruel tyrant over whom he has no control, and are only 
a collection of bloody edicts. Would any man contend that because he 
had the privilege of acting according to such a system of laws, thus 
arbitrarily imposed upon him, he was therefore in the enjoyment of 
freedom in the most rational sense? Far from it. And why? Simply 
because the oppressed subject would require an agency in making those 
laws. So long as this is denied him, and he feels upon his neck the 
galling yoke of tyranny, in vain might, you endeavor to solace him by 
enlarging upon his exalted privilege of obeying the law. You might 
assure him that no natural force could constrain him to go contrary to 


Uh. xiv.] THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 175 


the law, and that consequently he is possessed of freedom in the proper 
sense, hut all would be in vain. He would only feel that you were 
mocking at his chains! 

We now appeal to the candid mind to determine if this is not pre- 
cisely the kind of moral freedom which President Edwards allows 
to man, on account of which he strongly pleads that he is properly 
a free agent and justly accountable. Most unquestionably it is. He 
contends that man is a free moral agent because he may do as he 
wills, when his will is as unalterably fixed by necessity as the pillars of 
heaven. Such liberty as the above can no more render its possessor 
a free, accountable moral agent, than that possessed by a block or a 
stone. 

Indeed, there is no difference between the liberty attributed to man 
by the learned President of Princeton College, and that possessed by a 
block of marble as it falls to the earth when let loose from the top of a 
tower. We may call the man free because he may act according to 
his will or inclination, while that will is determined by necessity; but 
has not the marble precisely the same freedom? It has perfect liberty 
to fall; it is not constrained by natural force to move in any other 
direction, If it falls necessarily, even so, on the principle of Edwards, 
man acts necessarily. If it be said that the marble cannot avoid fall- 
ing as it does, even so man cannot avoid acting according to his will, 
Just as he does. If it be said that he has no disposition, and makes no 
effort, to act contrary to his will, even so the marble has no inclination 
to fall in any other direction than it does. The marble moves freely, 
because it has no inclination to move otherwise; but it moves neces- 
sarily, because irresistibly impelled by the law of gravitation. Just so 
man acts freely, because he acts according to his will; but he acts nec- 
essarily, because he can no more change his will than he can make a 
world. 

And thus it is plain that, although necessitarians may say they believe 
in free agency and man’s accountability, it is a freedom just such as 
pertains to lifeless matter. If, according to Edwards, man is free, and 
justly accountable for his actions merely because he acts according to 
his own will, when he has no control over that will, upon the same prin- 
ciple the maniac would be a free, accountable agent. If, in a paroxysm 
of madness, he murders his father, he acts according to his will. 
It is a voluntary act, and necessitarians cannot excuse him because 
his will was not under his own control; for, in the view of their SYS 
tem, it was as much so as the will of any man in any case possibly 
can be. The truth is, it is an abuse of language to call that free 


176 NLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.2 


dom which binds fast in the chains of necessity. Acting voluntarily 
amounts to no liberty at all, if [ cannot possibly act otherwise that 
I do. 

The question is, not whether I have a will, nor whether | may act 
according to my will, but What determines the will? This ix the point 
to be settled in the question of free agency. It is admited that the will 
controls the actions; but who controls the will? As the will controls 
the actions, it necessarily follows that. whoever controls the will must be 
accountable for the actions. Whoever controls the will must be the 
proper author of all that necessarily results from it, and consequently 
should be held accountable for the same. But man, sity uecessitarians, 
has no control whatever over his will. It is fixed by necessity just as 
it is, so that it could no more be otherwise than the effect could cease to 
result from the cause. 

According to this, we may talk as we may about free ageney, the 
liberty of the will, accountability, ete., but man, after all the embel- 
lishment we can impart, is a free, accountable agent, just in the same 
sense as the most insignificant particle of lifeless matter. Here we will 
close the present chapter by calling to mind what we have endeavored 
to exhibit. 

1. We have endeavored to explain what is tmplied in the proper free 
moral agency of man. 

2. We have endeavored to establish that doctrine by the evidence 
of consciousness; by an observation of the history of the world; and by 
an appeal to the divine administration as set forth in the Scriptures. Let 
the reader decide. 


Ca. xiv] THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN. 197 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIV. 


Question 1. Has the free agency of man administration as revealed in the 
been a subject of dispute? Scriptures? 
2. In what two general classes are the ; 13. Howis the proof conducted in refer- 
disputants placed? ence to Adam in paradise? 
3. What is meant by an agent? 14. How, in the addresses to man as a 
4. By a moral agent? being capable of choosing? 
5. By a free moral agent? 15. How, in reference to the general judg- 
6. Wkat is the definition of liberty as ment and rewards and punish 
given by Edwards? ments? 
7 What is the Armiman definition? | 16. Has the attempt been made to recon 
8. What is the precise point of con- cile necessity and free agency? 
troversy between necessitarians| 17. By what means? 
and the advocates for free agency, | 18. How is this attempt shown to be 
in reference to the will? vain? 
9. What are the three leading argu-| 19. How does it appear that, according 
ments for free agency? to the doctrine of necessity, man 
10. Explain the argument from con- cannot be accountable? 
sciousness. 20. What kind of free agency is consist- 
11 What is the argument from the ent with the doctrine of necessity? 
world’s history? 21 What has been attempted in thie 
12 What is the argument from the divine chapter’ 


12 


178 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.4. BD 


CHAPTER XV. 


THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN-——OBJECTIONS. 


WE propose in this chapter to examine some of the principal objeo 
tions which have been urged against the view taken in the preceding 
chapter of t..e freedom of the will. Those most worthy of notice are 
the following, viz. : 

I. It is said to be absurd in itself. 

II. It is said to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the divine 
prescience. 
(II. It is said to conflict with the doctrine of motives. 

We propose a respectful attention to each of these grand objections. 

I. It is alleged that the view we have taken of the proper freedom of 
the will is absurd in itself. 

President Edwards has argued at great lengun, that the selftactive 
power of the mind in the determination of the will, as contended for by 
Arminians, is absurd in itself, because it implies a preceding determination 
of the will to fix each free volition, and that this would imply an infinite 
series of volitions, which is absurd. 

President Day, of Yale College, who seems to be an apt disciple of 
Edwards, has, in a late work on the Will, highly complimented the 
treatise of Edwards, as having furnished in this argument an unanswer- 
able refutation of the Arminian notion of freedom. And truly we must 
say that the position, “that if each active volition is necessarily preceded 
by another, this would imply an infinite series, and consequently be 
absurd,” is a matter so obvious, that the numerous pages devoted by the 
learned author to this subject might have been spared. Indeed, he 
seems to have labored and proved, to an extent almost beyond endur- 
ance, a position which no intelligent mind can dispute. Had he shown 
the same solicitude for the establishment of his premises, and been 
equally successful in that particular, there could be no objection to his 
conclusion. 

That the Arminian notion of the self-active power of the mind in 
determining the will, implies that each volition must be preceded by 
another volition, is what has been asserted, but has never yet been 


un. xv.] THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN—OBJECTIONS. 178 


proved. The advocates of necessity, although they admit that by the 
self-determining power of the will is meant “the soul in the exercise 
of a power of willing,” yet, when they engage in argument, appear to 
forget this admission, and proceed as though the will were supposed to 
be an agent separate and distinct from the mind or soul in the act of 
willing Hence they involve the discussion in confusion, and bewilder 
the mind in a maze of verbal contradiction and absurdity. In every 
act of the will, let it be distinctly understood that the mind or soul is 
the agent, and the will is only expressive of the act or state of the mind 
or soul at the time and under the condition, of willing. 

Now let us inquire if every act of the soul in willing must, according 
to the Arminian notion of freedom, be preceded by another act of the 
svul in willing. Why is it that there can be no choice or act of will- 
ing performed by the mind itself, unless it is preceded by another act 
that determines it? Surely a choice preceded by another choice which 
determines it, is no choice at all; and to say that every free act, or self- 
determined act, must be preceded by another, by which it is determined, 
is the same as to say that there can be no free, or self-determined act. 
And this is the very point in dispute that ought to be proved, and not 
taken for granted. Indeed, we may directly deny it, and make our 
appeal to common sense to sustain us in the position. 

For illustration, we refer to the first vicious choice ever made by man. 
Now, let us contemplate the history of this matter as it really trans- 
pired. The tempter came to man for the first time, and presented the 
seducing bait. Man willed to disobey. Here we see but one act of the 
mind, There is not an act determining to choose the evil, and then 
another consequent act choosing the evil. The act determining to 
choose is really choosing. Determining to choose in a certain way, 
and choosing in that way, are the same thing. Now to say that 
Adam could not, in the exercise of his own powers, independent. of 
a predetermining cause operating upon him, choose between the evil 
and the good, is the same as to say that God could not make a free 
agent. 

Indeed, to say that a choice free from the necessary determination of 
a preéxisting cause cannot exist, is the same as to say that there is not 
a free agent in the universe, and that the Deity himself cannot possess 
self-determining power, but is only acted upon by the impulse of fatal- 
ity. If the Deity cannot choose or will without something external to 
himself determining his will, where are his self-existence and independ- 
ence? For, if the divine will is always determined by something 
external to he ‘livine mind that wills, then there must be something 


180 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1. B® 


existing prior to all the divine volitions, separate and distinct from 
the Deity himself. 

Again: if it be admitted that the divine mind can will or choose 
freely without being acted upon by a preceding choice, then it follows 
that it is not absurd in itself for the mind to determine its own acts, 
independent of necessary preceding causes. If it be admitted that the 
Deity can will by the free exercise of his own powers, then the only 
question will be, Can he confer this exalted power upon a creature? If 
we deny that he possesses it himself, we destroy his self-existence and 
independence. If we deny his ability to confer this power upon a crea- 
ture, we deny his omnipotence. 

Then the whole question concerning the absurdity of the Arminian 

doctrine of the self-determining power of the will, resolves itself into a 
question concerning the divine power. Necessitarians contend that God 
cannot create a free, self-determining agent; and Arminians deny the 
assertion, and appeal to the self-existence and independence of the Deity 
to disprove the absurdity in the case; and rely upon the omnipotence 
of God to prove that the creation of moral agents in the divine image, 
so far as the self-determining power of the mind is concerned, is not 
impossible. To say that God cannot make a free agent capable of 
determining within himself his own volitions, is to limit the divine 
power. 
But Edwards again contends that “this self-determining power of the 
will implies the absurdity of an effect without a cause.” We deny the 
charge. We are not obliged to admit that because the will is not 
determined in every case by a preceding act of the will, or some pre- 
vious cause external to the mind itself, that therefore there is no cause 
in the case. By no means. ‘If the mind wills one way instead of 
another, there must be a cause for it; but that cause must not neces- 
sarily be either preceding or external, as necessitarians contend. It may 
be both simultaneous and internal—that is, it may originate in the mind 
itself at the time of willing. 

If it be said that “then the mind itself must be the cause of its own 
volitions, and if so, there must always be a previous something in the 
mind to determine it to will in one way instead of another,” we reply, 
truly the mind is the cause of its own volitions, to such extent that 
they are not necessarily determined independently of its own action; 
but it does not follow that there must be something previously existing 
in the mind, necessarily determining it to choose as it does. All the 
previously existing cause essential in the case is, the capacity of the 
mind, in the exercise of its powers, to will at the time, either the one 


Oh. xv.] THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN—OBJECTIONS. 181 


way or the other. If the causative power exists in the agent or n.ind to 
effectuate either one of two or more events or volitions, it matters not 
which one of these events or volitions may be produced, it will be as 
truly the resultant of an adequate cause as if the agent or mind had 
possessed no alternative power for producing another event or volition, 
instead of the one it did produce. Hence it is unphilosophical to say 
that a volition is uncaused, because the agent causing it had power to 
have caused another volition instead thereof, Our own consciousness 
testifies that we have the alternative power of willing or doing right or 
wrong; and our willing or doing either way does not prove that we 
might not have willed or done otherwise. In the exercise of this 
capacity, upon the principles of free agency, and not impelled by stern 
necessity, the particular will in a given case originates; and thus we see 
how it was in the case given of the first transgression. : 

Man had been endued with the power to choose, or to control, his own 
will. The tempter came: in the exercise of that power, man chose the 
evil. Here the cause was in himself, and originated in, and flowed from, 
the manner in which he exercised his powers. This manner of exercising 
his powers resulted, not necessarily, but contingently, from the nature 
of the powers themselves. He might have exercised them differently. 
The cause, or the determining power, was in himself. God placed it 
there; and for God to place it there to be exercised contingently for 
good or evil, implies no more absurdity, so far as we can see, than for 
God to have placed the cause in something preceding, external, and 
necessary. And thus we think the doctrine of free agency is success: 
fully vindicated from the charge of absurdity and self-contradiction. 
So far from being absurd in itself, it presents the only consistent illus- 
tration of the divine attributes, and the only satisfactory comment upon 
the divine administration. 

II. The next grand objection to the doctrine of free agency is, that it 
is supposed to be irreconcilable with the Scripture account of the divine 
prescience. 

Necessitarians argue that free agency, in the proper sense, implies 
contingency ; and that contingency cannot be reconciled with the divine 
foreknowledge. It is admitted by Arminians, and the advocates of free 
agency generally, that the foreknowledge of God extends to all things 
great and small, whether necessary or contingent—that it is perfect and 
certain. The only question is, whether this foreknowledge implies 
necessity, That whatever God foreknows certainly will take place, we 
are free to acknowledge; but that this certain foreknowledge iroplies 
absolute necessity, is what we deny, and what, we believe, cannot be 


182 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B® 


proved. All the arguments we have seen adduced for that purpose are 
based upon the supposition that certainty and necessity are synonymous. 
Now, if we can show that they are separate and distinct things, and that 
certainty does not imply necessity, the objection under consideration 
must fall to the ground. 

We remark, in the first place, that this objection labors under the 
serious difficulty that, while it aims to destroy the free agency of mar, 
it really would destroy the free agency of God. For, if whatever is 
foreknown as certain must also be necessary, and cannot possibly be 
otherwise, then, as God foreknew from eternity every act that he would 
perform throughout all duration, he has, all the while, instead of being 
a free agent, acting after the “ counsel of his own will,” been nothing 
more than a passive machine, acting as acted upon by stern necessity. 
This conclusion is most horribly revolting; but, according to the argu- 
ment of necessitarians, it cannot possibly be avoided. And if we are 
forced to the conclusion that God only acts as impelled by necessity, 
and can in no case act differently from what he does, then it must follow 
that necessity or fate made and preserves all things; but is it not obvious 
that this doctrine of necessity, as applied to the Deity, is most glaringly 
absurd? To suppose that the great Jehovah, in all his acts, has been 
impelled by necessity, or, which is the same thing, that he has only 
moved as he was acted upon, is to suppose the eternal existence of 
some moving power separate and distinct from the Deity, and superior to 
him; which would be at once to deny his independence and supremacy. 
We cannot, then, without the most consummate arrogance and absurd- 
ity, admit the position that all the acts of the Deity are brought about 
by necessity. Yet they are foreknown; and if, as we have seen, God’s 
foreknowledge of his own acts does not render them necessary, and 
destroy his free agency, how can it be consistently argued that God’s 
foreknowledge of the acts of men renders them necessary, and destroys 
their free agency? 

Again, let us contemplate the subject of foreknowledge in relation 
to the actions of men, and see what evidence we can find that it implies 
necessity. It has been contended that God cannot foreknow that a 
future event certainly will take place, unless that event necessarily 
depends upon something by which it is known. “ The only way,” says 
President Edwards, “by which any thing can be known, is for it to be 
evident; and if there be any evidence of it, it must be one of these 
two sorts, either self-evidence or proof: an evident thing must be either 
evident in itself, or evident in something else.” This he lays down as 
bis premises, from which he proceeds to argue that God cannot foreknow 


Ch. xv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN--—OBJECIIONS. 188 


future events, unless they are rendered absolutely necessary. That his 
premises, and the reasoning based upon them, may hold good in refer- 
ence to the knowledge of man, we do not question; but that they apply 
to the foreknowledge of the Deity, cannot be shown. 

If man foreknows any thing, that foreknowledge must result from a 
knowledge of something now existing, between which and the event 
foreknown there is a necessary connection. But is it legitimate to infer 
that because this is the case with man, it must also be the case with 
God? Have we a right to measure the Holy One by ourselves? 
Indeed, to infer the necessity of all things from the divine prescience, is 
to limit the perfections of Jehovah. ° It is to say either that God could 
not constitute any thing contingent, or that, after having so constituted 
it, he cannot foreknow it. Either hypothesis would argue a limitation 
to the perfections of God. 

This subject, we think, may be rendered plain by a careful reflection 
on the nature of knowledge. What is it? Is it an active power, 
possessing a distinct independent existence? We answer, No. It is 
passive in its nature, and possesses only a dependent and relative exist- 
ence. It can exist only in the mind of an intelligent being. Knowl- 
edge, as such, can exert no immediate and active influence on any thing 
whatever. 

It has been said that “knowledge is power;” but it is not implied 
by that expression that it is a power capable of exerting itself. All 
that is implied is, that it directs an active agent in the manner of 
exerting his power. What effect, I would ask, can my knowledge of a 
past event have upon that event? Surely none at all. What effect can 
my knowledge ofa future event have upon it? Considered in itself, it 
can have no influence at all. Is there any event, whether past, present, 
or future, on which the mere knowledge of man can have any influence? 
Certainly there is none. Knowledge is a something existing in the 
mind. It has its seat there, and of itself it is incapable of walking 
abroad to act upon extraneous objects. I would therefore ask, What 
effect can the divine knowledge have on a past or present event? Is it 
not ecbvious that it can have none? The knowledge of God does not 
affect the faithfulness of Abraham, or the treachery of Judas, in the least. 
Those events would still continue to have occurred precisely as they did, 
if we could suppose all trace of them to be erased from the divine mind. 
And if we could suppose that God was not now looking down upon me, 
could any one believe that I would write with any more or less freedom 
om that account? Surely not. If, then, knowledge, considered in all 
these different aspects, is passive in its nature, how can we rationally 


184 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.2 


infer that its passivity is converted into activity so soon as we view it in 
the aspect of the divine prescience? 

But it will doubtless be argued that although the foreknowledge of 
God may not render future events necessary, yet it proves that they are 
so. To this we reply, that it proves that they are certain, but cannot 
prove that they are necessary. But still, it will be asked, where is 
the difference? If they are certain, must they not therefore be neces- 
sary? 

That we may illustrate the distinction between certainty and neces- 
sity, we will refer to the crime of Judas in betraying the Saviour. Here 
we would say it was a matter certain in the divine mind, from all eter- 
nity, that Judas would commit this crime. God foreknewit. Although 
it was also foretold, yet it was not rendered any the more certain by 
that circumstance; for prediction is only knowledge recorded or made 
manifest; but knowledge is equally certain, whether secret or revealed. 
The pointed question now is, Could Judas possibly have avoided that 
crime? Was he still a free agent? and might he have acted differently ? 
or was he impelled by absolute necessity? We answer, he could have 
avoided the crime. He was still a free agent, and might have acted 
differently. 

Here it will no doubt be argued that if he had avoided the crime, 
the foreknowledge of God would have been defeated, and the Scriptures 
broken. To fairly solve this difficulty, and draw the line between cer- 
tainty and necessity, we answer, that if Judas, in the exercise of the 
power of free agency with which he was endued, had proved faithful, 
and avoided the crime in question, neither would the foreknowledge of 
God have been frustrated, nor the Scriptures broken. In that case, the 
foreknowledge of God would have been different, accordingly as the sub- 
ject varied upon which it was exercised. God could not then have 
foreknown his treachery; and had it not been foreknown, it never could 
have been predicted. A free agent may falsify a proposition supposed 
to announce foreknowledge, but cannot falsify foreknowledge ; for if the 
agent should falsify the proposition, that proposition never could have 
been the announcement of foreknowledge. 

The truth is, the prediction depends on the foreknowledge, and the 
foreknowledge on the event itself. The error of the necessitarians on 
this subject is, they put the effect for the cause, and the cause for the 
effect. They make the foreknowledge the cause of the event, whereas the 
event is the cause of the foreknowledge. No event ever took place merely 
because God foreknew it; on the contrary, the taking place of the 
event is the cause of his haying foreknown it. Let this distinction be 


Ch. xv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN—OBJECTIONS, 18é 


kept in mind, that, in the order of nature, the event does not depend on 
the knowledge of it, but the knowledge on the event, and we may 
readily see a distinction between certainty and necessity. It is certain 
with God who will be saved, and who will not; yet it is likewise certain 
that salvation is made possible to many who, according to the certain 
_prescience of God, never will embrace it. God has made some things 
necessary, and some things contingent. Necessary events he foreknew 
as necessary—that is, he foreknew that they could not possibly take 
place otherwise. Contingent events he foreknew as contingent—that 
is, he foreknew that they might take place otherwise. And thus, we 
think, foreknowledge and free agency may be harmonized, human 
responsibility maintained, and the divine government successfully vindi- 
cated. 

ILI. We will now consider the objection to the view taken of free 
agency, which is founded upon the doctrine of motives. 

Necessitarians have relied with great confidence on their arguments 
from this source. In illustrating their views of the doctrine of motives, 
they have chosen different figures, all amounting substantially to the 
game thing—leading necessarily to the same conclusion. 

Dr. Hartley has represented the thoughts and feelings of the soul as 
resulting from the various vibrations of the brain, produced by the 
influence of motives, or surrounding circumstances. He admits frankly 
that his scheme implies “the necessity of human actions;” but he says, 
“J am sorry for it, but I cannot help it.” 

Lord Kames represents the universe as “one vast machine composed 
of innumerable wheels, all closely linked together, and moving as they 
are moved.” Man he considers as “one wheel fixed in the middle of 
the vast automaton, moving just as necessarily as the sun, moon, or 
earth.” 

President Edwards has represented “ motives and surrounding objects 
as reaching through the senses to a finely-wrought nervous system, and, 
by the impressions made there, necessarily producing thought, volition, 
and action, according to the fixed laws of cause and effect.” 

According to all these three general systems, the conclusion in refer- 
ence to the influence of motives, etc., is the same—that is, it appears 
that the mind is like a machine or a pair of scales, only a passive sub- 
stance, moving as it is acted upon by force applied to the wheel, or. 
weight to the scale. Here is the leading principle in the systems of 
al] the advocates of philosophical necessity; and upon this grand point 
the advocates of free agency join issue. 

That we may see distinctly the point upon which the issue is made, 


186 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. & 


we may here observe that advocates on both sides have very frequently 
mistaken or misrepresented the views of their opponents. First, then, 
let it be understood that necessitarians, by motives as influencing the 
will, do not maintain that the strongest motive, considered in reference 
to its real and proper weight, always prevails; but by the strongest 
motive they understand the motive having the greatest influence over 
the individual at the tirae, and under all the circumstances of the case. 
This is the same as saying that the prevailing motive always prevails; 
which is only the assertion of a simple truism, which no one can 
dispute, 

The point, therefore, in which the matter of controversy is involved, 
is not whether the strongest motive, considered in reference to its real 
weight, always prevails. This, necessitarians are misrepresented, if 
they are charged with holding. Nor is it in dispute whether the 
strongest motive, considered in reference to its influence over the indi- 
vidual at the time and under the circumstances, always prevails. This 
the advocates of free agency do not deny, for that would be the same 
as to deny that the prevailing motive is the prevailing motive. Nor is 
it a matter of dispute whether motives and surrounding circumstances 
have any influence in determining the will. That they do have a pow- 
erful influence, metaphorically speaking, none can deny. 

What, then, we ask, is the real point of dispute? It is simply this: 
Do motives presented to the mind, and surrounding circumstances, have 
an efficient, absolute, and irresistible influence over the will, so as in 
all cases to make it necessarily what it is? This is the real and the 
only point in the doctrine of motives on which the controversy turns. 
Necessitarians affirm on this question, and the advocates of free agency 
deny. We will endeavor impartially to examine the question. 

That we may understand the true doctrine concerning the influence 
of motives on the will, we observe, 1. God the Creator must have pos- 
sessed within himself the power of action, otherwise creation never 
cou.d have taken place; for, previous to creation, nothing existed but 
God, and consequently if he could only act as acted upon by something 
external to himself, as there was nothing in the universe but himself, he 
must have remained forever in a state of inaction, and creation could 
not have originated. Now it must be admitted, either that God has 
created beings capable of acting without being necessarily acted upon 
by something external to themselves, or he has not. If he has not, 
then it will follow that there is but one agent in the universe, and that 
is God; and angels and men are only patients, no more capable of 
eelf-motion than a clod ora stone. This theory at once destroys the 


Ch. xv.) THE MORAL AGENCY 0F MAN—OBJECTIONS. 187 


distinction between matter and mind, is directly repugnant to the 
whole tenor of Scripture, and most recklessly subversive of the plain- 
est dictates of common sense! And yet it will appear that it is the 
only theory consistent with the views of necessitarians on the subject 
of motives. 

Now let us take the opposite position, and suppose, according to 
common sense and Scripture, that two distinct classes of substances 
have been created—material and immaterial. In other words, that God 
has not only created dead, inanimate matter, capable only of moving 
as it is moved, but that he has also created intelligent beings, endued 
with self-moving energy, capable, not of themselves, but in the exercise 
of their derived powers, of voluntary action, independent of external 
and necessary force, and it will be at once apparent that there is a 
radical and essential distinction in nature between lifeless matter and 
these intelligent beings. If this distinction be admitted, which cannot 
possibly be denied while the voice of common sense or Scripture is 
allowed to be heard, then it will follow that lifeless matter and intel- 
ligent beings are regulated by laws as different as are their essential 
natures. 

Here we find the origin of the grand metaphysical blunder of neces- 
sitarians of every school, and of every age. They have made no dis- 
tinction between matter and mind. The ancient Manichees, the Stoics, 
the atheistic and deistic philosophers, Spinoza, Hobbes, Voltaire, Hume, 
and others, have been followed, in this confounding of matter and mind, 
by many learned and excellent men, such as President Edwards of 
Princeton, and President Day of Yale College. 

Indeed, the whole treatise of Edwards, in which he has written three 
hundred pages on the human will, is based upon this blunder. His 
almost interminable chain of metaphysical lore, when clearly seen in all 
its links, is most palpably an argument in a circle. He assumes that 
the mind is similar to matter, in order to prove that it can only act as 
acted upon; and then, because it can only act as acted upon, he infers 
that, in this respect, the mind, like matter, is governed by necessity. Al- 
though he turns the subject over and over, and presents it in an almost 
endless variety of shape, it all, so far as we can see, amounts to this: 
The mind, in its volitions, can only act as it is acted upon; therefore the 
will is necessarily determined. And what is this but to say that the 
will is necessarily determined, because it is necessarily determined? Can 
any real distinction be pointed out between the labored argument 
of Edwards and this proposition? But we shall soon see that this 
assumed position-—that the mind can only act as it is acted upon—is 


188 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 2 


phitosophically false. This grand pillar upon which the huge meta- 
physical edifice has been reared, may be shown to be rotten throughout, 
yea, it may be snapped asunder by a gentle stroke from the hammer of 
reason and common sense; and then the edifice, left without foundation, 
must fall to the ground. 

Let us now contemplate these motives which are said to act upon the 
mind so as necessarily to influence the will. Let us look them full in 
the face, and ask the question, What are they? Are they intelligent 
beings, capable of locomotion? Are they endued with a self-moving 
energy? Yea, more: Are they capable of not only moving themselves, 
but also of imparting their force to something external to themselves, so 
as to coerce 2ction in that which could not act without them? If these 
questions be answered in the negative, then it will follow that motives, 
considered in themselves, can no more act on the mind so as necessarily 
to determine the will, than a world can be created by something with- 
out existence. If these questions be answered in the affirmative, then 
it will follow that motives at least are free agents—capable of acting 
without being acted upon, and endued with self-controlling and self- 
determining energy. Necessitarians may fall upon either horn of. 
the dilemma; but upon which horn soever they fall, their system must 
perish. 

If the attempt be made to evade this by saying that motives do not 
act themselves, but God is the agent acting upon man, and determining 
his will through the instrumentality of motives—if this be the mean- 
ing, then I demand, why not call things by their right names? Why 
attribute the determination of the will to the influence of motives, and 
at the same time declare that motives are perfectly inefficient, capable 
of exercising no influence whatever? Is not this fairly giving up the 
question, and casting “to the moles and to the bats” the revered argu- 
ment for necessity, founded upon the influence of motives? 

Again, to say that motives exercise no active influence, but are only 
passive instruments in the hands of God by which he determines the 
w'll by an immediate energy exerted at the time, is the same as to say 
that God is the only agent in the universe; that he wills and acts for 
man; and, by his own direct energy, performs every physical and 
moral act in the universe, as really and properly as he created the 
worlds; and then that he will condemn and punish men everlastingly 
for his own proper acts! Is this the doctrine of philosophical neces- 
sity? Truly it is. And well may we say this is fatalism! This is 
absurdity ' 

Now, let us turn from the absurdities of the necessitarian scheme, and 


Ch. xv.) THE MORAL AGENCY OF MAN—OBJECTIONS. 189 


see if we can perceive the true doctrine on the subject of motives. 
Suppose, as I pass the street, I perceive in the shop on my right the 
choicest liquors most invitingly displayed. I am tempted to drink to 
excess. I parley with the temptation. I long for the delicious wines. 
[ think of the dreadful consequences of inebriety; but then returns my 
love of strong drink, and I determine in my will to yield myself up to 
intoxication. Here we perceive an act has been performed by which 
the will is fixed in a particular way; but the question is, Who is the 
agent. in this act? Necessitarians would say the motive to intoxication 
has been the active agent, and man has been the passive instrument. 
But we ask, What motive, or what surrounding circumstance, in this 
case, has put forth active energy, so as not only to move itself without 
being acted upon, but also to communicate an irresistible impulse to 
something external to itself? Can the wines in the bottles exhibit their 
eloquent tongues, and plead with the passer-by to quaff them? Surely 
not. They are themselves as passive as the bricks in the wall. Can 
the love for strong drink assert a separate and independent existence, 
and rise up as an active agent, independent of the man, and use argu- 
ments with the understanding, and coercively determine the will? This 
is so far from being the case, that these motives have no existence itself, 
independent of the man. They only derive their existence through the 
exercise of the active powers of man; and shall it be said that they 
necessarily control those powers, and even that those powers cannot be 
exerted except as they are necessarily impelled by motives? Can mo- 
tives be the cause and the effect in the same sense, at the same time? 

The plain truth is, motives do not act themselves at all. It is the 
mind that aets upon them. They are passive, and only move as they 
are moved. The mind of man is the active agent that picks the motive 
up, turns it about, and estimates its weight. This will be rendered 
somewhat plainer when we reflect that two objects both passive can never 
act upon each other: some active power must first move the one, or it 
can never move the other. Suppose two blocks of marble placed near 
together in the same room: can the one arise up and impart a direct and 
resistless influence to the other, so as to cause it necessarily to change its 
place? Certainly nct. And why? Simply because they are both pas- 
sive. Now, as motives, arguments, and surrounding circumstances, are 
obviously passive in their nature, incapable of moving themselves, it 
necessarily follows that if the mind is also passive, the one vannot act 
upon the other—neither motives upon the mind, nor the mind upon 
motives. Hence, agreeably to the assertion of necessitarians, that the 
mind is passive, the wi] cannot be influenced by motives at all. 


190 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. Mat in Fe 


The fallacy of the reasoning of Edwards and others on this subject 
consists in their considering the influence attributed to motives as an 
independent and active influence, whereas motives are all the time pas 
sive, and are really acted upon by the mind, soul, or feelings of man. 
So far from motives actively determining the will, through the mind or 
soul, it is the mind or soul that determines the will, and, by its own 
active energy, gives to motives all the influence they possess. 

This is evident from the very nature of motives. What are they? 
Are they not arguments, reasons, or persuasions? Now, if the mind 
can exercise no free agency of its own, in attending to arguments, 
examining reasons, or yielding to persuasions, why address them to 
man, and exhort him to give them their due weight? The very fact 
that they are motives, arguments, reasons, or persuasions, is proof suffi- 
cient that they are designed to influence the will, not necessarily and 
irresistibly, but only through the agency of man. So that when we ad- 
mit that the motive having the greatest influence, at the time and under 
the circumstances, always prevails—or, in other words, that the pre- 
vailing motive always prevails—the question is still before us, Why does 
it prevail? What gives it the greatest influence? Does it exercise this 
influence of itself independently? We have already shown that it can- 
not. What, then, gives it this prevailing influence? It is the free and 
uncoerced agency of the man himself which determines the influence 
of the motive, which gives it that influence, and thereby determines 
the will. 

If it still be asked why the mind determines to give to a particular 
motive a certain influence, and to fix the will accordingly, we reply, the 
reason is in the mind itself. God has endued us with this power. 
Without it we could not be moral agents; we could not be accountable; 
we could no more be rewarded or punished than the earth on which 
we tread. ; 

We think we have said enough to show that the argument against 
free agency from the doctrine of motives is fallacious, and alike 
repugnant to reason, common sense, and Scripture. And whether, in 
this chapter, we have successfully vindicated the loctrine of free agency 
from the objections that it is absurd in itself, and inconsistent with the 
divine prescience and with the doctrine of motives, we submit to the 
decision of the reader. 


th. xv} THE MORAL AGENCY OF 


MAN—OBJECTIONS. BETY 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XV. 


Question 1. What are the three lead-| 6. 


ing objections to the doctrine of free 


agency? & 
%. How is it attempted to prove that} 8. 


this doctrine is absurd in itself? 


. How is the objection answered? 9. 
¢. What is the objection founded upon | 10. 


the doctrine of foreknowledge? 


5 Is the doctrine of forekncwledge ad- | 11. 


mitted as true? 


Is it admitted that it implies cer 
tainty? 

How, then, is the objection answered? 

What is the objection from the doc- 
trine of motzves? 

How is this objection answered? 

What is the precise point of dispute 
in reference to motives? 

What has been aimed at in this char 

ter? 


—_— 


PART I.—DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK IIIl.—THE REMEDIAL SCHEME—ITS PROVISIONS 


CHAPTER XVI. 
THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 


THE word atonement occurs but once in the New Testament, (Rom. v. 
i1. ) In that passage the Greek is KatadAayhy, from the verb xatad- 

It is, however, a word of ener occurrence in the Old Testament. 
In the Hebrew, the word is copher, signifying, primarily, to cover, or 
overspread; but is constantly used to denote the expiation or satisfaction 
made for sin, by the various sacrifices and offerings presented under the 
law. 

By lexicographers, generally, the word is defined to mean an expiation 
or satisfaction for an injury or offense. 

In a theological sense, by the atonement, we understand the expiration 
or satisfaction made for sin, by the. sufferings and death of Christ, whereby 
salvation is made possible to man. 

No subject belonging to Christianity has been thought to involve more 
intricacy, and certainly none possesses more importance, than the one 
now presenting itself to our consideration; therefore it merits at our 
hands the closest thought and the most devout supplication, that in ref- 
_ erence to this deeply interesting theme we may be led to a clear percep- 
tion of the “truth as it is in Jesus.” 

It will readily be perceived that the great subject of redemption through 
the atonement of Christ is founded upon, and intimately connected 
with, the state of man as a sinner, which has been the subject of dis- 
cussion in several of the preceding chapters. Indeed, it is clear that if 
man he not a sinner, to provide a Saviour for his redemption would be 


13 (193) 


194 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 3. 


perfectly useless. Redemption through Christ is obviously a scheme 
of recovery from the evils of the Fall. It is a gracious remedy for the 
moral disease with which, as we have already seen, the nature of man 
is infected. To deny the existence of the disease, is to discard the neces- 
sity of the remedy. Hence it would appear reasonable to suppose that 
our views of the nature of the remedy will be influenced by the light 
in which we view the disease for which it is provided. If we are heter 
odox on the one point, to preserve consistency throughout our system, 
we cannot be sound in the faith upon the other. Thus it will be seen 
that, in proportion as the scriptural doctrine of depravity has heen 
depreciated or discarded, so has the doctrine of atonement been: ex- 
plained away or denied. zi 

Before we enter properly into the investigation of this subject, as pre- 
sented in the Scriptures, it may be proper briefly to present the leading 
views which have been entertained upon it by different classes of theo- 
logians. That Jesus Christ is the Saviour of sinners, and that his 
mission into our world, and his death and sufferings are, in some way, 
connected with this great work, is freely admitted by all. But when we 
come tv speak of the nature of the connection between the death of 
Christ and the salvation of man, a great diversity cf sentiment, on points 
of vast importance, is at once seen. 

The first theory which we shall notice upon this subject is generally 
denominated Socinianism, though it has been adopted by most of the 
modern Unitarians. The substance of this system we shall present in 
the language of Dr. Priestley, in his “History of the Doctrine of the 
Atonement.” The quotations have been collected and thrown together 
by Dr. Hill, in his “Lectures,” as follows: 

“The great object of the mission and death of Christ was to give 
the fullest proof of a state of retribution, in order to supply the 
strongest motives to virtue; and the making an express regard to the 
doctrine of a resurrection to immortal life the principal sanction of 
the laws of virtue, is an advantage peculiar to Christianity. By this 
peculiar advantage the gospel reforms the world, and remission of sin 
is consequent on reformation. For although there are some texts in 
which the pardon of sin seems to be represented as dispensed in con- 
sideration of the sufferings, the merit, the resurrection, the life, or the 
obedience of Christ, we cannot but conclude, upon a careful exami- 
nation, that all these views of it are partial representations, and that, 
according to the plain general tenor of Scripture, the pardon of stn is, 
in reality, always dispensed by the free mercy of God upon account 
of man’s personal virtue, a penitent, upright heart, an? a reformed, 


Gh. xvi. THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 195 


exemplary life, without regard to the sufferings or merit of any being 
whatever.” 

From these extracts it appears that the Socinians deny that Christ 
suffered in the room of sinners, to expiate their sins, and satisfy the 
demands of a broken law. According to their view, he only saves us 
by leading us to the practice of virtue, through the influence of his 
example and instructions. . 

The second theory we shall notice is the Arianhypothesis. This, 
while it attaches more importance than the Socinians do to the death 
of Christ, denies that_it was either vicarious or expiatory; and so falls 
very far short of the proper Scripture view. This system represents 
Christ, as more than a mere man—as a superangelic being, the first and 
most exalted of creation; and that his mission into our world was a 
wonderful-display-of-benevolence, inasmuch as he left the high honors 
of glory, and condescended to lead a life of toil and ignominy in. the 
propagation of his religion; and then to seal the truth of his doctrine 
with his own blood. Sufferings so great, say the Arians, by so exalted 
a character, although they are in no sense vicarious or expiatory, yet 
are not without their influence, but constitute a powerful argument ip 
favor of the salvation of sinners, since they form a sufficient ground 
for the Redeemer to claim the deliverance of all who repent and 
believe, as a reward for what he has done and suffered in their 
behalf. Thus, according to this view, the Saviour gains a power 
and dignity as a Mediator by his sufferings, though there is seen no 
special necessity for them, inasmuch as God, had he seen fit, could 
have extended salvation to man as consistently without as with those 
sufferings. 

The theory which we have here presented has not only been advo- 
cated by the Arians, but, with little variation, has found favor with 
some divines having higher claims to orthodoxy—such as Dr. Balguy 
of the Established Church of England, and Dr. Price among the Dis- 
senters. We will not now enter into the discussion of the peculiar 
character of the two schemes just presented, but in the regular course 
of the investigation of the Scripture doctrine of the atonement, we 
trust their refutation will be sufficiently obvious. 

In pleading for their peculiar views on the subject of the atonement, 
the different parties have not only appealed to the Scriptures, but have 
instituted a course of reasoning founded upon the analogy of faith and 
the general tenor of revelation. Such a course of investigation, in 
reference to this subject, is by no means improper, provided both reason 
and revelation be allowed to occupy their proper position, But let it 


196 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P1283 


be remembered that while we may exercise our reason in reference to 
the correct understanding of what is plainly revealed, we are not at 
liberty, as professed Christians, to reason in opposition to the explicit 
declarations of the inspired oracles. That this obviously important 
principle has always been observed, especially by those who have 
opposed the expiatory character of the atonement, can by no means be 
affirmed. Indeed, there is perhaps no subject in the investigation of 
which men have ventured farther in bold and impudent assertion, in the 
very face of plain Scripture. Such has been the spirit of many who 
have written in opposition to what we conceive to be the true doctrine 
of the atonement, that they have been utterly incapable of making a 
fair statement of the doctrine they opposed. They have poured their 
vituperation and abuse upon a caricature of their own invention—a 
creature of their own imagination—bearing scarcely a feature of resem- 
blance to the acknowledged sentiments of those whom they opposed. 
But this will more fully appear as we proceed in the investigation of the 
doctrine. 

I. The first point to which we invite attention is, the difficulties in the 
way of man’s salvation, which rendered the atonement necessary. Why 
was it, it is asked, that there was a necessity for the sufferings of the 
Son of God? To this we reply, that the great necessity for the atone- 
meut is founded upon the pure and unchangeable principles of the 
divine government. But these must be considered in connection with 
the true character and condition of man, as well as the grand design 
of the Almighty in his creation. Let these important points be care- 
fully examined, and the necessity for the great work of atonement will 
be clearly seen. 

1. Then, we say, that in proposing to himself the creation of human 
beings, the Infinite Mind must have been swayed and determined by a 
design worthy the character of the Supreme Creator. This grand 
design, or reason, for the creation of man could not have been based 
npon the nature or character of man while as yet he had no actual 
existence, but must have been the result of the divine perfections, in 
their independent operations. “I do not here introduce any external 
impulsive cause as moving God unto the creation of the world; for ] 
have presupposed all things distinct from him to have been produced 
out of nothing by him, and consequently to be posterior, not only to the 
motion, but. the actuation, of his will. Since, then, nothing can be ante- 
eedent to the creature besides God himself, neither can any thing be a 
cause of any of his actions but what is in him, we must not look for 
any thing extrinsical unto him, but wholly acquiesce in his infinite 


Uh. xvi.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 197 


goodness, as the only moving and impelling cause.” (V’earson on the 
Creed.) 

From all that we can learn of the nature of God himself, and the 
character of his administration toward his creatures, we are led to infer 
that, in the creation of man, the great object was the development of the 
divine perfections, and the happiness of intelligent creatures. Any thing 
repugnant to, or falling short of, this pure and exalted object, would be 
so derogatory to the divine character, and so palpably inconsistent with 
what we see of the divine administration, as to be utterly incapable of 
commanding the assent of an intelligent mind. 

2. If the correctness of this statement, in reference to the design of 
God tm creation, be admitted, we inquire, in the next place, whether the 
noble and exalted powers with which man was originally endued were, 
in their nature, calculated to promote this design. Now, it must be 
admitted that the Almighty was not only perfectly free to create or not 
to create, but also to create man as he was created, or a being of vastly 
superior or inferior powers. This being the case, it must follow that 
Infinite Wisdom saw that the grand design of creation would be best 
promoted by producing beings of precisely the character with which 
man was primarily constituted. If we deny this conclusion, we arraign 
the divine perfections, and charge the Creator with folly! As we dare 
not do this, we inquire, What was the primitive character of man? 
We learn from St. Paul that “he was made a little lower than the 
angels;” that “he was crowned with glory and honor;” that he was 
“set over the works” of the divine hand; and that “all things” were 
put in “subjection under his feet.” Now, it appears from this that 
man was originally formed, not only superior to inanimate creation— 
to stocks and stones that cannot feel—but also superior to irrational, 
sentient existences — to “birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping 
things.” In a word, he was made a free and morally accountable 
agent. Endued with rational powers, capable of discerning between 
right and wrong, he was a being calculated to reflect the glories of the 
great Creator by a proper exercise of the exalted powers conferred 
upon him. He was capable of enjoying God, from which alone solid 
happiness can spring. And this capacity resulted from his nature, 
as a free moral agent. Hence it will appear that the endowment of 
free agency, originally conferred upon man, was calculated to promote 
his own happiness, and to exhibit the glorious perfections of the Creator, 
which, as we have seen, accords with the grand design in creation. 

3. From the character of man as a free moral agent, it necessarily fol. 
lows that he must he placed under a law adapted tu his nature. There 


198 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (EaDBss 


is apparent a fitness and harmony throughout the system of the universe, 
which necessarily results from the perfections of Him who made all 
things. The various parts of the works of God are placed in situations 
suitable to their nature: thus the fish are assigned to the aqueous ele- 
ment, while the birds are allowed to fly in the air. The entire material 
universe is placed under a system of government correspondent to ita 
nature, known by the appellation of physical laws, or laws of nature 
To have placed mere matter under a system of moral government, 
would have been a blunder too glaring to be possible for Infinite 
Wisdom. 

Equally absurd would it be for irrational, sentient beings to be placed 
under a law suited only either to unorganized, lifeless matter, or intel- 
lectual moral agents. How then could we suppose that the infinitely 
wise Creator would produce a race of rational, intelligent beings, endued 
with ‘ree moral agency, as we have seen men to be, and leave them 
eithe: without a law for the government of their actions, or place them 
under a system of government not suited to their nature? The idea is 
most preposterous, and disgraceful to the divine character. To have 
placed man under the regulation of laws only suited to lifeless matter, 
would have been to reduce him to the character of a clod or a pebble; 
to have placed him under laws suited to irrational, sentient beings, 
would have been to reduce his character to the level of “the beasts 
which perish;” but to have left him entirely destitute of law, would 
have been to strike him from existence at a blow; for all creation, 
whether material or immaterial, whether rational or irrational, is, by 
the wise arrangement of the great Ruler of the universe, placed under 
a system of government completely adapted to the diversified character 
of the things to be governed. 

This beautiful and harmonious adaptation of law to the character 
of the creatures of God, necessarily results from the infinite perfections 
of the Creator; so that it cannot possibly be otherwise, unless we would 
destroy the divine government, and annihilate the perfections of Jeho- 
vah. From the principles here laid down, the truth of which we think 
cannot be denied, it will necessarily follow that either to have left 
man without a rule for the government of his conduct, or to have given 
him a law not suited to his character as a moral agent, would have 
been either to have made him something entirely different from what 
he was, to have destroyed his very existence, or, what is far worse, 
to have deranged or annihilated the perfections of the great Creator 
himself. 

4. In the next place, we notice that this law, adapted to the character 


Ch. xvi] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 199 


of man, under which we have seen that he must have been placed, must 
uecessarily be of such a character that man may either obey or disobey 
it. Whatever theory we may adopt in reference to the freedom of the 
human will, if it would deprive an accountable moral agent of the 
power to do either good or evil, we may rest assured that it is false. A 
moral, accountable agent must, of necessity, possess this power; other- 
wise you might as well speak of rewarding the sparks for “flying 
upward,” or of punishing the rivers for discharging their waters into the 
ocean. Hence it will follow that the law under which man was placed 
was such that he might have kept it, although he was free to disobey it. 
There is no possible way of avoiding this conclusion, but by denying 
th> character in which man was created, which, as already shown, would 
arraign the attributes of his Creator. 

Again, as the grand design of the Almighty in the creation of man 
was that his own glory might be displayed in the happiness of his creatures, 
it was therefore necessary, for the attainment of this end, to promote 
the obedience and virtue of man. That happiness is necessarily con- 
nected with obedience and virtue, is one of the plainest principles of 
philosophy, as well as religion. “To be good is to be happy,” has 
become a maxim of acknowledged truth. Vice produces misery, as a 
necessary and invariable consequence. Hence the Almighty, in order 
to secure the happiness of man, endeavored, by all appropriate means, 
to secure his obedience and virtue. But this could only be accomplished 
by placing him under appropriate law; for where there is no law or 
rule of action, there can be no obedience, no transgression, no virtue, no 
vice; in a word, without law, there can be neither moral good nor evil; 
there can be no distinction in the qualities of actions; nor can we see 
how an intelligent, accountable agent could exist. 

5. In the next place, it would follow that, in order to carry out the 
original design of the happiness of man, this suitable law must be 
plainly prescribed. A Jaw unrevealed can be of no avail. How can 
man be expected or required to perform his duty, unless he be informed 
of its nature? Hence, at the first creation, the Almighty made a plain 
revelation of his will to man. None can know the mind of God but 
by revelation from him; hence to deny revelation, would be to deny that 
the will of God is the law under which man is placed; or otherwise we 
must deny the accountability of man, and discard the entire system of 
rewards and punishments. 

6. But, xgain, it must be obvious that the revelation to man of a suit- 
able law fox the government of his conduct, can be of no avail unless 
there be sted an adequate penalty. In fact, a law without a penalty is @ 


200 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Peis Bes 


contradiction in terms—a manifest absurdity. The moment you abstract 
the penalty, the quality of daw ceases, and the command can be nothing 
more than mere advice. Therefore we see clearly the propriety, and 
even the absolute necessity, of annexing to the law an adequate penalty. 
With divine authority and consistent propriety it was said, “In the day 
thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” 

It has been contended by some, who admit the propriety of what 
they would be pleased to call an adequate penalty, that the penal ty of 
death here specified was unnecessarily severe; therefore, although this 
point has been touched in the discussion of the fall of man, some far- 
ther observations may, in this place, be necessary. 

It must, then, be admitted, in the first place, that the prime ob; vet 
of penalty is to prevent crime, so far as this can be accom plished with- 
out destroying the moral agency and accountability of man. Had it 
been possible so to frame the penalty of the law as either to prevent the 
possibility of obedience on the one hand, or of disobedience on the 
other, the necessary consequence would have been that man could no 
longer be rewardable or punishable, but must sink to the station of 
inanimate or irrational creation. Hence it is plain that, in the selection 
of the penalty for the Adamic law, the Almighty not only had respect 
to the prevention of crime, and the promotion of the happiness of his 
creatures, but also to the preservation of the great principles of his 
moral government, as well as the security to man of his high dignity 
of free moral agency and accountability to God. When these great 
essential objects, for the accomplishment of which the penalty was 
designed, are taken into the account, it is utterly impossible for man, 
with his limited powers, to say, without the most daring presumption, 
that the penalty was not the most appropriate that could possibly have 
been selected. 

It is certain that if the penalty has any influence at wl, in propor- 
tion as it is increased in severity will the probability of »bedience be 
increased. Therefore, to say that the threatened penalty waz too severe, 
is in effect to say that the probability for disobedience, and consequent 
misery, should have been rendered greater than it was. With how 
little semblance of reason this can be contended for, will be manifest, 
when we reflect that, great as the penalty was, it did not absolutely 
secure obedience; the event shows that man did transgress. Surely, 
then, there could have been no necessity for adding to the probability 
of that event. We think it must be admitted that it is impossible tor 
man, @ priori, to determine how great the penalty must have been, te 
have destroyed his accountability, by giving too great security to ole 


| 
| 
| 


th xvi] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 201 


dience; or how small it must have been, to have destroyed his 
accountability by giving too great security to disobedience. For any 
thing that we can certainly know, the smallest increase or diminution 
of the penalty might have wrested from man his character as a free 
moral agent, and rendered him utterly unfit for either reward or pun- 
ishment. 

Once more: that it is obviously inconsistent for a believer in the truth 
of revelation to cavil about the nature of the penalty of the original 
law, must be admitted, when we reflect that it amounts virtually to an 
impeachment of the divine attributes. To say that the Divine Being 
did not so comprehend the entire character and relations of his own 
creatures, as to know certainly what description of penalty was the best 
calculated to promote his grand design in creation, is directly to assail 
his wisdom. To say that he chose to affix one penalty to the law, when 
he knew that another was better suited to the grand end in view, is an 
impudent attack upon his goodness. Hence it will follow that, unless 
we venture to assail the divine perfections, if we admit the truth of 
revelation, which declares explicitly, “In the day thou eatest thereof, 
thou shalt surely die,” we are compelled to admit that the annexed 
penalty was the most appropriate, and the best calculated to promote the 
grand design in man’s creation, of any that could have been selected. 
He whose wisdom and goodness are so gloriously exhibited throughout 
his works, in the perfect adaptation of the means to the end, cannot 
be supposed, in reference to the moral government of man—the most 
important being belonging to sublunary creation—to have blundered so 
egregiously as to have selected inappropriate means for the accomplish- 
ment of his excellent and glorious purpose. 

7. The only remaining consideration, in order that we may arrive at 
the ground of necessity for the atonement, is for us to ascertain whether 
there was a necessity for the execution of the penalty, after the law had 
been violated; or whether it might have been remitted, independently 
of satisfaction or expiation. To this inquiry we reply, that every con- 
sideration which urged the propriety of the threatening, or even of the 
establishment of the law itself, with equal propriety and force demanded 
the execution of the penalty. To affix a penalty to a law, and then 
permit disobedience to pass with impunity, and the threatened penalty 
tc be entirely forgotten or disregarded, would be perfect mockery. 
Therefore, when man transgressed, the truth, justice, mercy, and all 
the attributes of God, as well as the stability and honor of the eternal 
throne itself, cried aloud for the execution of the penalty of the violated 
law. 


202 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi BS 


1. Those who have denied the necessity, and consequently the real- 
ity, of the atonement, have contended that the Almighty might con- 
aistently, by the exercise of his mere prerogative as Governor of the 
universe, have extended pardon to the sinner, without any satisfaction 
or condition whatever. To this we reply, that perhaps such might be 
the case, provided the Almighty were destitute of moral character, and 
regardless of moral principle. But a little reflection will show that 
such a course of procedure would be at war with the holy and immu- 
table perfections of God. 

(1) God had positively denounced the penalty—“In the day thou 
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” This was the unequivocal lan- 
cuage of God himself. Had no regard been paid to this after man had 
transgressed, where would have been the truth of God? And what 
kind of a lesson on the subject of veracity would herein have been 
inculeated upon the intelligent universe? 

(2) Upon this principle, where would have been the justice of Gol? 
Had not the affixing of the penalty been in accordance with the eternal 
rectitude of the divine character, it never could have been threatened , 
and if so, it will necessarily follow that the same immutable principles 
of rectitude which first authorized the penalty will require its execution. 
Indeed, to say that God has a right to remit a threatened penalty, inde- 
pendently of satisfaction or atonement, is to deny that he has the right 
to execute it; fora right to inflict a penalty, or punishment, can only 
be founded upon the supposition that it is just. And if it be in accord- 
ance with justice to inflict the penalty, it must follow that if it be not 
inflicted, the claims of justice are infringed. 

Again, upon the supposition that God has a right to remit any pen- 
alty, by the mere exercise of his prerogative, it would follow that, upon 
the same principle, he may remit every penalty, and that not only in 
reference to its severity, but to its whole extent and influence. And if 
it be right, according to the principles of justice, to remit all penalty 
and punishment, it cannot be consistent with goodness to inflict any 
punishment whatever; for it is most clear that the goodness of God 
must always seek the happiness of his creatures, so far as it can be done 
consistently with his rectitude. Thus it appears that pardon without 
an atonement, on the principle of prerogative, would deprive the Al- 
mighty of all right to punish offenders, nullify the principles of justice, 
and overturn the government of God altogether. 

(3) But, in the next place, it may easily be seen that the above plan 
of pardon by prerogative, independent of atonement, is also repugnant 
to the goodness of God. The grand object of law is the happiness and 


Ch. xvi.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 208 


well-being of the intelligent universe. The great Governor of all can 
not act upon the principle of clearing the guilty without inflicting a 
positive injury on the innocent; for it is to the interest of all intelligent 
beings that the divine government be sustained. Upon its stability 
depends, not only their happiness, but their very existence itself. Let 
it be known that crime is not to be punished, that law is merely a form, 
and threatened penalty but a mockery, and who can tell the conse 
quence that would immediately result throughout the vast extent of 
God’s moral dominions? A license for universal rebellion would be 
proclaimed, and soon the intelligent universe would become a ruinous 
wreck. With such an example of disregard for principle in the divine 
administration before them, what hope could there have been that man, 
or any of the subjects of God’s moral government, could afterward 
have paid any regard to the divine command? Therefore the divine 
goodness itself, which would prevent the universal prevalence of anarchy 
and rebellion, and the consequent misery and eternal ruin of millions 
of worlds, joins her voice with the pleadings of justice, for the honor 
and security of the divine throne, for the preservation of the principles 
of immutable rectitude in the divine administration, and for the promo- 
tion of the happiness of God’s intelligent creatures, in opposition to 
the ruinous scheme of pardon by prerogative, independent of atone 
ment. 

2. In the next place, we will notice that some have contended that, 
even if there were a doubt with regard to the propriety of extending 
pardon by prerogative to all classes of transgressors indiscriminately, 
there can be no doubt of its propriety and fitness on the condition of 
repentance. This is the ground taken by Socinus, and it has been 
strenuously insisted upon by Dr. Priestley, and the modern Socinians 
and Unitarians generally. But that it is alike repugnant to reason, 
fact, and Scripture, we think may be easily shown. 

(1) Let it be remembered, that to plead for the propriety of pardon 
on the ground of repentance, is, in effect, to acknowledge that it cannot 
consistently be conferred by the mere prerogative of God, by which it 
has been contended that he may relax his law at pleasure, and relin- 
quish his right to punish the sinner. To say that repentance is required 
as the condition, is to admit that there is something in the principles 
of unbending rectitude by which the divine government is swayed, that 
would render it improper to pardon offenders indiscriminately, merely 
on the principle of mercy. This scheme, then, evidently acknowledges 
the necessity of a satisfaction of some kind, in order to pardon; but the 
question is, whether that satisfaction is bare repentance, 


204 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pas 8.8 


Here we may observe, in the second place, that the word repentance, 
_ m the Scriptures, is taken in two different senses ; but in neither accep- 
tation can it furnish a just and independent ground for pardon. 

First, it means sorrow for sin, induced solely by the apprehension or 
realization of the dreadful punishment and misery necessarily resulting 
therefrom, without being founded upon any pure principle of hatred to 
sin on acconnt of its intrinsic moral evil, or leading to any genuine 
reformation of heart and life. The dispensing of pardon upon a repent- 
ance of thi’ kind, is not only destitute of the least countenance from 
fact. and eripture, but it would be as completely subversive of all 
moral gowsrnment as if no condition were required whatever. Were 
this prine‘ple admitted, it would follow that God is bound to extend 
pardon te every repentant criminal, and that, too, as soon as he begins 
to repent. This is contradicted by the fact that all men, even after 
they repent of their sins, are left in this world to suffer more or less the 
evil consequences thereof. Now, if repentance is the only and suffi- 
cient ground for pardon, every repentant sinner should immediately be 
released from all punishment whatever. But again, is it not evident 
that any sinner, so soon as all hope of advantage from crime were gone, 
and he began to feel the just punishment of his sins, would immediately 
begia to repent; and thus, no sooner would the punishment begin to be 
felt, than it would be removed? This would in effect overturn all 
government, and proclaim complete and immediate indemnity for all 
transcression. 

In the next place, repentance, in the Scriptures, is taken for that sin- 
cere and heart-felt sorrow for sin, on account of its intrinsic evil and 
offensiveness in the sight of a holy God, which leads to a reformation 
of heart and life, from pure and evangelical principle. 

In reference to a repentance of this kind, we remark, in the first 
place, that, independent of grace received through the atonement of 
Christ, it is utterly out of the power of any man thus to repent. This 
necessarily follows from the totally depraved character of man as a 
fallen sinner, which has already been discussed. Now, to make this 
repentance, which can only result from the atonement of Christ, a con- 
sideration by which the necessity of that atonement shall be superseded, 
is manifestly absurd. But even if we admit the possibility of repent- 
ance, in the full sense of the word, independent of the atonement, this 
repentance could nevertheless be no just ground for pardon. It could 
not change the relation of the sinner to the violated law. He would 
still be charged with the guilt of transgression, however penitent he 
might be. This guilt nothing but pardon can remove. Were it the 


ch. xvi.) THE ATONEMENT—-ITS NECESSITY. 20! 


case that repentance could remove the guilt of the sinner, independew 
of pardon, then pardon itself would be entirely superseded. 

(2) Again, it is clear that repentance, however sincere it may be, ane 
however great the immediate benefits resulting from it, can have n¢ 
retrospective bearing, so as to cancel past offense. Were it true thal 
full and immediate pardon flows directly consequent upon repentance 
then it would follow that the broken constitution of the intemperate, the 
wasted fortune of the profligate, and the blasted character of the crimi 
nal, would, upon reformation of heart and life, immediately be restored’ 
but such is evidently not the fact. As in reference to the things of this 
life, repentance, while it may deliver us from falling again into such 
crimes and misfortunes as we have forsaken and endeavored to escape, 
cannot immediately deliver us from the bitter consequences of past mis- 
doings and folly; so, upon the same principle, in reference to spiritual 
things, while it may prevent a farther accumulation of guilt, and an 
exposure to increased punishment, it cannot affect the past, so as to 
remove the guilt, and release from the punishment already contracted 
and incurred. 

(3) Again, to suppose that repentance can purchase exemption from 
punishment incurred by past offense, is to suppose that we are not con- 
tinually indebted to God the full tribute of all the service we are 
capable of rendering. If the service of to-day may not only meet the 
demands of God upon us for the time being, but also enable us to satisfy 
the unliquidated claims of yesterday, then it follows that it is possible 
for us to perform works of supererogation—to do more than God 
requires of us, and thus procure a surplus of merit, which we may 
transfer to the benefit of our more destitute neighbor, or by which we 
may accumulate an account in our own favor, so as to bring the Al- 
mighty, according to strict principles of law, actually in our debt. How 
absurd the hypothesis! 

(4) Once more: a close examination of the subject will show that 
pardon, upon the principle of repentance alone, is self-contradictory and 
absurd. To say that pardon is based upon repentance, is to admit 
that it cannot take place otherwise; and if so, then it would follow that 
there must be a hindering cause; but no hindering cause can exist, 
except the obligations of the Almighty to maintain the principles of his 
moral government. But if the Almighty is under obligations to main- 
tain the principles of his moral government, then it will follow that he 
is not at liberty to pardon, even the penitent offender, without an atone- 
ment, or expiation for past guilt; for the law denounces “death as the 
wages of sin,” irresnective of penitence or impenitence, Thus it appears 


206 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (PrisBas. 


that pardon for sin without atonement, whether the sinner be penitent 
or impenitent, would be repugnant to the principles of law; and this 
plan of pardon would abrogate the divine government, as really as it 
could be done by the system of pardon on the principle of mere pre- 
rogative. 

(5) Finally, the Scriptures give no countenance to either of these modes 
of pardon. It is therein declared that God “will by no means clear 
the guilty.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” “The wages of sin 
is death;” and, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things 
written in the book of the law to do them.” These are the statutes of 
the divine government; and they stand with equal force against the 
penitent and the impenitent; nor can they, in the least, mitigate their 
rigor, or release their hold upon the criminal, however penitent he may 
be, till their claims are met, and their full demands satisfied, by an 
adequate atonement. 

It is true that the Scriptures present the promise of mercy to the 
sincere penitent; but it is not upon the ground or merit of repentance, 
but through the atoning sacrifice of Him who is “exalted a Prince and 
a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.” Thus 
have we seen that the necessity for the great work of the atonement of 
Christ is founded upon the principles of the divine government, taken 
‘in connection with the grand design of the Almighty in the creation 
of man, as well as the true character of man as a free moral agent, 
who, by the abuse of that liberty, has fallen under the penalty of a 
violated law, and consequently lies in a state of guilt and misery. 


fh. xvi.| 


THE ATONEMENT—ITS NECESSITY. 


207 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVI. 


Question 1 What is the only passage 


14. 


15. 


in wluch the word atonement occurs 
in the New Testament? 


. What is the Greek word there used, 
- and what does it mean? 
. What is the Hebrew word for atone- 


ment, and what does it mean? 


. What is the definition as given by 


lexicographers generally? 


. How is the word understood in a 


theological sense ? 


. Upon what important doctrine is 


the atonement founded ? 


. What is the Socinian view of the 


atonement? 


. Explain the Arian view of the sub- 


ject? 


. What is the ground of necessity for 


the atonement? 


. What was the grand design in the 


creation of man? 


. What was the primitive character of 


man? 


. Did that character accord with the 


design in creation? 


. How does it appear necessary that 


man should have been placed un- 
der law? 

What description of law was essen- 
tial for his government? 

From what does the adaptation of 
law to the subject result ? 


16. 


fie 


18. 


19. 


20. 


21. 


28. 


29, 


Why was it necessary that man 
should be capable of either obey- 
ing or disobeying the law? 

Why was it requisite to promote the 
obedience of man? 

What was the only method by which 
this could be accomplished ? 

Why was it requisite that the law 
should be prescribed? 

Why was the affixing of a penaity 
necessary ? ‘ 

How can it be shown that the most 
suitable penalty was selected ? 


. Why was it necessary to execute the 


penalty ? 


. What two grounds of pardon have 


been presented by those who deny 
the atonement? 


. How does it appear that pardon on 


the principle of mere prerogative 
is impossible ? 


. Why cannot pardon be on the ground 


of repentance? 


. In what two senses is repentance 


understood ? 


. How does it appear that pardon on 


the ground of repentance is repug- 
nant to acknowledged fact? 

How does it appear that it is repng 
nant to Scripture? 

How is the necessity for the atcne 
ment shown in this cbay ter? 


£08 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pes 23 


CHAPTER XVII. 


THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE— PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC 
SACRIFICES. 


Having seen, in the preceding chapter, the necessity for the atone 
ment, we now enter upon the investigation of its nature. 

No subject connected with our holy religion has been attacked by 
unbelievers with more virulence than this. ‘They have summoned to 
the onset the utmost power of invective and raillery which their inge- 
nuity could devise and their venom employ. But in no part of their 
wanton assault upon the principles of religion have they more glaringly 
exhibited their disingenuousness and their ignorance. That they may 
oppose with success, they first misrepresent. Their version of the Chris- 
tian doctrine of atonement has been generally presented in something 
like the following miserable caricature: “That the Almighty created 
man holy and happy; but, because he simply tasted an apple, he 
instantly became enraged against him and all his posterity, until he had 
wreaked his vengeance by killing his own innocent son, when he imme- 
diately got over his passion, and was willing to make friends with man.” 
Such is the horrible and blasphemous figment of the doctrine of atone- 
ment exhibited by infidels, for the fiendish purpose of scorn and ridicule. 
But how vastly different is this from the truth! Let unbelievers first 
inform themselves correctly, and they will find less reason to scot? and 
deride. 

But “to the Jaw and to the testimony.” With the most implicit reli- 
ance upon its truth, we appeal to the word of God for information upon 
the important subject before us. 

We will endeavor to establish the grand and leading proposition, that 
the death of Christ is, according to the Scriptures, the meritorious and pro- 
curing cause of man’s salvation. 

The whole doctrine of atonement is evidently based upon the propo- 
sition now before us, and consequently we shall endeavor carefully to 
define the terms of the proposition before we bring the subject. to the 
test of Scripture. 

First, by the “meritorious and procuring cause of salvation,” we 


Ch. xvii.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 20% 


mean more than is admitted upon the Socinian hypothesis. Even by 
this scheme, which, perhaps, the most of all schemes depreciates the 
merits of Christ, his death is not entirely discarded as useless, and in 
every sense of the word disconnected with human salvation. But if 
we inquire in what sense the death of Christ is connected with salvation, 
according to this system, it will be seen to allow no merit, in the proper 
sense of the word, but only to admit an indirect influence to his death 
as it sealed the truth of his doctrine, honored him asa martyr, and thus 
became instrumental in leading men to repentance, by which they would 
necessarily be saved, whatever may be the circumstances or instrumen- 
tality by which that repentance is produced. By this scheme it will 
readily be seen that repentance, and not the death of Christ, is the meri- 
torious cause of salvation; and the death of Christ cannot, in the 
proper sense, be considered as strictly necessary, since the death of any 
other being, as well as many other circumstances, might be instrumental 
in inducing men to repent. 

Secondly, by the “meritorious and procuring cause of salvation,” we 
mean more than is admitted by the modern Arian hypothesis. By this 
scheme, the death of Christ is only necessary to salvation as it gives an 
exhibition of his disinterested benevolence, in voluntarily submitting to 
sufferings so great in the behalf of others; and thus enables him, as 
Mediator, to claim the salvation of sinners as his reward. This scheme, 
it may be observed, destroys the absolute necessity for the death of 
Christ, inasmuch as it makes salvation depend solely on the personal 
virtue and dignity of the character of the Mediator. Now, it is clear 
that the actual sufferings of Christ could not add any thing to the 
intrinsic virtue and personal dignity of his character. He was a being 
of the same exalted character before his incarnation, and possessed 
quite as much benevolence before his sufferings; and it cannot be sup- 
posed that his actual humiliation and matchless sufferings were neces- 
sary to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Father, the excellency of 
the character of his immaculate Son. Had this been the only necessity 
for the death of Christ, well might it have been dispensed with; and 
we may rest assured that the benevolence of the Father could never 
have required it. 

But by the phrase, “meritorious and procuring cause of salvation,” 
as applied to the death of Christ, we mean, 1. That there were obstrue- 
tions in the way of man’s salvation, which could not possibly be removed 
without the death of Christ. 2. That his sufferings were vicarious and 
expiatory ; that he died in our room and stead, to satisfy the claims of 
law against us, and thereby to render it possible for God to extend to 

14 


210 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.S. 


us the mercy of salvation, on such terms as his wisdom and goodness 
might devise and propose. This we present as the full and absolute 
sense in which the death of Christ was necessary to man’s salvation, 
and as the proper scriptural view in which the atonement of Christ is 
the “meritorious cause of salvation.” The doctrine here briefly stated 
occupies so important a position, and stands so conspicuously to view 
throughout the entire volume of revelation, that a mere quotation of 
all the passages in which it is contained, would be a transcript of a large 
portion of the Holy Scriptures. 

So deeply interwoven is the doctrine of atonement with the whole 
system of revelation, that it is not only expressly presented in numerous 
passages of the New Testament, but adumbrated, with a greater or less 
degree of clearness and force, in the types and predictions of the Old 
Testament. Many of these, it is true, considered in an isolated state, 
are not sufficiently definite and explicit to amount to satisfactory proof; 
but, taken in connection with the general tenor of Scripture upon this 
subject, and with the direct and unequivocal declarations with which 
the whole system of revelation abounds, their evidence is too weighty 
to be entirely overlooked. 

I. ScrirTtuRE PROOF ADDUCED. An intimation, too clear to be 
misunderstood, concerning the incarnation and sacrificial sufferings of 
Christ, is contained in the first promise or announcement of a Redeemer 
after the Fall. 

God said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between thee and the wo- 
man, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and 
thou shalt bruise his heel.” Gen. iii. 15. Here, we may observe, there is 
an intimation of a character styled the “seed of the woman,” and con- 
sequently human in one sense, who must be superhuman, or at least 
superior to Adam, in another sense; for he is to “bruise the head” of 
the serpent, or gain a signal victory over him, who had just gained so 
great a triumph over Adam. 

Observe, in the second place, that this triumph is not to be a bloodless 
conquest: it is not to be gained without a struggle, and, at least, some 
degree of suffering, for the serpent was to “bruise the heel” of “the 
seed of the woman.” This evidently refers to the sufferings of Christ, 
by which redemption from the miseries of the Fall was to be extended 
to man. Now, as Christ, who is universally admitted to be the “seed 
of the woman” here spoken of, “did no sin,” but was perfectly innocent, 
we can see no consistency in his “heel being bruised,” or in his being 
permitted to suffer in the least, unless it was by way of expiation, in 
the room and stead of others; therefore we see in this ancieut promise 


Ch. xvii.] THK ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 211 


at least a dawn of light upon the doctrine of atonement through the 
sufferings of Christ. 

II. Our next argument on this point is based upon the sacrificial wor- 
ship of the ancient patriarchs. 

There can be but little doubt with regard to the origin of animal 
sacrifices. Were there no historic record upon this subject, it would 
appear, a priori, impossible for this system of worship to have originated 
with man. There is nothing in nature which could have led unassisted 
human reason to infer that God could be propitiated by the blood of 
slain victims. So far as reason alone is concerned, a conclusion quite 
opposite to this would have been the most natural. 

Sacrificial worship must have originated by the appointment of God. 
This may be clearly inferred from the Mosaic history. Immediately 
after the Fall, it is said, “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the 
Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Commentators are 
generally agreed that the skins here spoken of were taken from animals 
slain in sacrifice as a sin-offering to God. As yet, the ravages of death 
had not entered the world, nor had the use of animal food been allowed 
to man; therefore the most rational inference is, that God, immediately 
after the Fall and the first. promise of a Redeemer, by his own express 
appointment, instituted sacrificial worship, connected with the duty of 
faith in Him who, by the offering of himself in the fullness of time, was 
to “bruise the head of the serpent,” and atone for the sins of the world. 
That this is the true origin of sacrifices, may be strongly inferred from 
the fact that Abel and others of the patriarchs were soon engaged in 
similar worship. It could not have been an invention of their own, for 
they are said to have performed it “by faith,” which clearly implies, not 
only the divine authority for the institution, but also its typical reference 
to the promised Messiah, the great object of true faith in all ages. 

The following remarks upon the passage before us are from the Com- 
mentary of Matthew Henry: “Those coats of skin had a significancy. 
The heasts whose skins they were must be slain---slain before their eyes— 
to show them what death is, and (as it is Eccl. iii. 18) that they may see 
that they themselves are mortal and dying. It is supposed they were 
slain, not for food, but for sacrifice, to typify the great Sacrifice which, 
in the latter end of the world, should be offered once for all: thus, the 
first thing that died was a sacrifice, or Christ in a figure, who is there- 
fore said to be ‘the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ ” 

The following comment upon the same words is from Dr. A. Clarke: 
“It is very likely that the skins out of which their clothing was made 
were taken off animals whose blood had been poured out as a sin-offering 


212 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pie Ba 


to God; for, as we find Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to God, we may 
fairly presume that God had given them instructions upon this head; 
nor is it likely that the notion of a sacrifice could have ever occurred to 
the mind of man, without an express revelation from God. Hence we 
may safely infer, 1. That as Adam and Eve needed this clothing as 
soon as they fell, and death had not as yet made any ravages in the 
animal world, it is most likely that the skins were taken off victims 
offered under the direction of God himself, and in faith of Him who, in 
the fullness of time, was to make an atonement by his death. 2. It 
seems reasonable, also, that this matter should be brought about in such 
a way that Satan and death should have no triumph, when the very 
first death that took place in the world was an emblem and type of 
that death which should conquer Satan, destroy his empire, reconcile 
God to man, convert man to God, sanctify human nature, and prepare 
it for heaven.” 

Again, in Gen. vii. 2, we find the distinction of clean and unclean 
beasts specially mentioned. As this was previous to the flood, and con- 
sequently at a time when the grant of animal food had not as yet been 
made to man, it presents a strong evidence of the divine appointment 
of animal sacrifices at this early period. Unless we admit that God had 
given commandment for certain kinds of beasts to be offered in sacri- 
fice, this distinction of clean and unclean beasts cannot be rationally . 
accounted for. That this distinction was founded upon the divine insti- 
tution of sacrificial worship, is farther evidenced by the fact that Noah 
was commanded to take with him into the ark a greater number of 
clean than of unclean animals; and as soon as he came forth from the 
ark, he engaged in the work of sacrifice. Now, if the clean beasts 
were such as had been appointed as proper for sacrifice, and especially 
as Noah offered sacrifices immediately upon leaving the ark, the pro- 
priety of a greater number of that description of animais being pre- 
served is at once manifest. 

Since, then, we find satisfactory evidence that animal sacrifices were 
thus early established by divine appointment, we cannot consistently 
deny that they were expiatory in their character. Death was declared 
to be the penalty of the original law; and it is one of the settled princi- 
ples of the divine government that “the wages of sin is death.” From 
this it would appear that, whatever may be the circumstances under 
which death takes place, it must have a direct connection with sin. 
This connection, so far as we can infer from the Scriptures, must either 
be of the nature of a penalty or of an atonement. If life be taken by 
the direct authority of God, and the being thus slain is not a substitute 


Ch. xvii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 213 


or an offering in the behalf of others, the death which thus rakes place 
niust be the infliction of the penalty of the violated law; but wherever 
the idea of substitution is recognized, and the sufferings of death by the 
appointment of God are vicarious, there is no rational way of accounte 
ing for them but upon the admission that they are also expiatory. Now, 
us God commanded animal sacrifices to be offered by the patriarchs, as 
an act o* religious worship, the institution must have had reference to 
the condition, and been designed for the benefit, not of the animals sac- 
rificed, but of him who presented the offering. And what could there 
have been connected with the character of man but sin, to require this 
bloody sacrifice in his behalf? And in what way could man have 
derived any benefit therefrom, unless it was intended. in some sense, to 
expiate or atone for his sins? 

Thus we discover that, from the very nature of animal sacrifices, 
their expiatory character may be rationally inferred. And in order to 
make the argument from the patriarchal sacrifices conclusive, in the 
establishment of the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of 
Christ, it is only necessary for us to admit that those sacrifices were 
typical of the great and only availing Sacrifice for sin. That this 
important point stands prominently recognized in the whole tenor of 
Scripture, will be abundantly seen in the sequel of this investigation. 

1. The first act of sacrifice to God, of which we have any express 
record, is that of Cain and Abel. 

“And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the 
fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also 
brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the 
Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his 
offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his coun- 
tenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and 
why is thy countenance fallen? And if thou doest well, shalt thou not 
be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Gen iv. 
3-7. With this account of the transaction we must connect St. Paul’s 
comment upon the same. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more 
excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was 
righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and by it he being dead yet 
speaketh.” Heb. xi. 4. 

In reference to the transaction here recorded, there has been much 
written both for and against the divine appointment and expiatory char- 
acter of the patriarchal sacrifices. But it is not necessary to our purpose 
to enter specially upon the many questions, in connection with this sub- 
ject, which have engaged the attention of commentators and critics, 


214 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, ppl .¥2 


We shall, however, endeavor to point out several circumstances con- 
nected with this sacrifice, which plainly indicate its expiatory character 
and typical reference to Christ, and which cannot be satisfactorily 
explained upon any other hypothesis. 

(1) Let it be noted that, according to the comment of the apostle, 
the sacrifice of Abel was offered “by faith.” When we examine what 
is said in reference to the ancient worthies in the eleventh chapter to 
the Hebrews, we discover that their faith rested on certain promises; 
and the clear inference is, that such must also have been the case with 
the faith of Abel. But let us inquire what that promise was. Here, if 
we deny that Abel, in this transaction, was acting under divine instruc- 
tions, in the performance of a religious service, we see no possible way 
in which his sacrifice could have been “offered by faith.” Hence we 
have the plainest evidence that this sacrificial worship was by the 
express appointment of God. 

Again: unless we admit that the victims he presented were a sin- 
offering, expiatory in their character, and adumbrative of the offering 
of Christ as an atonement for the sins of the world, we can see no suit- 
able object for the faith of Abel to have embraced in connection with 
the offering presented; nor can we see the least significancy in the 
character of the sacrifice. But if we admit that the offering of animal 
sacrifice by Abel was according to the appointment of God—a typical 
representation designed to direct the faith to the “Lamb of God that 
taketh away the sin of the world”—the whole subject is at once plain 
and impressive. 

(2) Notice the peculiar character of the offering of Abel as contra 
distinguished from that of Cain. The latter “brought of the fruit of the 
ground ;” but the former “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the 
fat thereof.” Now, if we admit that animal sacrifices, by the express 
appointment of God, were at once an acknowle Igment by the sacrificer 
of his own sin, and of his faith in the great atoning Sacrifice, the rea- 
son why the offering of Abel was “better” and more successful than 
that of Cain is at once obvious; but if we deny this, we can see no 
reason for the superiority of the one offering to the other. 

(3) The apostle styles the offering of Abel “a more excellent sacrifice” 
than that of Cain. The word 7Aéiova, here rendered more excellent, has 
hwen the subject of criticism with the learaed. Some have contended 
that it means a greater quantity, and others, a better quality, or kind, 
of offering. The translation of Wickliffe, it cannot be denied, is as 
\iteral a rendering as can be made. As Archbishop Magee has ob- 
verved, though “it is uncouth, it contains the full force of the original 


Uh. xvii} THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 215 


It renders the passage ‘a much more sacrifice, ete.” Whateyer may be 
the conclusion in reference to the sense in which this “much more” is 
to be taken—whether it relates to nature, quantity, or quality—it must 
be admitted that it points out the peculiarity in the offering of Abel, 
which gave it superiority with God over that of Cain, and hecame the 
testimony to Abel “that he was righteous.” Now if God had ordained 
by express command that “righteousness,” or justification, was to be 
obtained by faith in the atoning Saviour, and had instituted animal sac- 
rifice as the typical representation of that atonement, the reasonableness 
and propriety of the whole procedure—the offering of Abel, the respect 
that God had to his offering, the righteousness he thereby obtained, and 
the divine testimony it gave him that his gifts were accepted—are all 
clearly exhibited. But if this be denied, we see no way of accounting 
for and explaining these circumstances. Hence we conclude that in 
the “offering” of Abel we have a clear typical representation of the 
vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ. 

The following is presented by Archbishop Magee, as a brief summary 
of the conclusion of many of the ancient divines upon this subject: 
“Abel, in firm reliance on the promise of God, and in obedience to his 
command, offered that sacrifice which had been enjoined as the religious 
expression of his faith; while Cain, disregarding the gracious assurances 
that had been vouchsafed, or, at least, disdaining to adopt the prescribed 
mode of manifesting his belief, possibly as not appearing to his reason 
to possess any efficacy, or natural fitness, thought he had sufficiently 
acquitted himself of his duty in acknowledging the general superin- 
tendence of God, and expressing his gratitude to the Supreme Bene- 
factor, by presenting some of those good things which he thereby 
professed to have been derived from his bounty. In short, Cain, the 
first-born of the Fall, exhibits the first fruits of his parent’s disobedi- 
ence, in the arrogance and self-sufficiency of reason rejecting the aids 
of revelation, because they fell not within its apprehension of right. 
He takes the first place in the annals of Deism, and displays, in his 
proud rejection of the ordinance of sacrifice, the same spirit which, in 
latter days, has actuated his enlightened followers, in rejecting the sac- 
rifice of Christ.” 

2. The next instance of patriarchal sacrifices which we shall mention 
is the case of Noah, immediately on his leaving the ark. 
~ “And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean 
beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. 
And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in his heart, 
[ will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.” Gen. viii 


216 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pia Bys 


20, 21. Here, in order that we may see that Neah performed this act 
of worship in compliance with a previous appointment of God, it is 
only necessary for us— 

(1) To reflect on the dispatch with which he engages in the work 
when he comes forth from the ark. There is no time for the exercise 
of his inventive genius, which we may suppose would have been 
requisite, had he not previously been familiar with this mode of wor- 
calip. 

(2) He“ took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl;” which is 
an evidence that the distinction of clean and unclean animals was an 
appointment of God in reference to sacrifice, and consequently that the 
system of sacrifice connected with this distinction was also an appoint- 
ment of God. 

(3) The Lord approved this sacrifice: he “smelled a sweet savor;” 
which he conld not have done had not this mode of worship been in 
accordance with his own institution. 

(4) The sacrifice of clean animals here presented was typical of the 
atonement of Christ. This may be seen by the allusion to this pas- 
sage in the language of Paul, in Eph. v. 2: “Christ hath loved us, and 
given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for a sweet- 
smelling savor.” Here, the words dopijv ebwdiac, used by the apostle, 
are the same found in the Septuagint in reference to the sacrifice of 
Noah. 

3. Again, we see the patriarch Abraham, on a memorable occasion in 
which he received a renewal of the gracious promise of God, engaging 
in the performance of animal sacrifice with the divine approbation. 

“And he said unto him, Take me a heifer of three years old, and a 
she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle- 
dove, and a young pigeon. And he took unto him all these, and 
divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another; but 
the birds divided he not.” Gen. xv. 9,10. In reference to this passage, 
Dr. Clarke says: “It is worthy of remark, that every animal allowed 
or commanded to be sacrificed under the Mosaic law, is to be found in 
this list. And is it not a proof that God was now giving to Abram an 
epitome of that law and its sacrifices which he intended more fully to 
reveal to Moses; the essence of which consisteth in its sacrifices, which 
typified ‘the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world’?” 

We will only add that we have, in this coincidence of the animals 
sacrificed by Abraham, and under the Mosaic law, a clear demonstra- 
tion that the patriarchal sacrifices were of divine appointment; other. 
wise this coincidence is unaccountable. 


m xvii! tuk ATONEMENT—ITS NATURR. ZIT 


In the twenty-second chapter of Genesis, we have a record of the 
remarkable faith of Abraham, in presenting his son Isaac as a burnt: 
offering on Mount Moriah, in obedience to the divine command. In 
Heb. xi. 17-19, we have the comment of St. Paul upon this subject: 
“By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that 
had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it 
was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God 
was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he 
received him in a figure.” 

(1) We have in this transaction a clear proof that animal sacrifices 
were originally instituted by divine appointment. This is evidenced by 
the considerations that God expressly commanded Abraham to go to 
Mount Moriah, and there offer a burnt-offering; that Abraham spoke 
of his intended sacrifice as of a service to which he had been accus- 
tomed; that Isaac, by asking the question, “Where is the lamb for a 
burnt-offering?” discovered a familiarity with that mode of worship ; 
and that God actually provided the lamb to be sacrificed instead of 
Isaac. All these circumstances testify that sacrificial worship was an 
institution of God. 

(2) We here have a lively type of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. 
Abraham is said to have received Isaac “from the dead in a figure.” 
The word here rendered figure is tapaGBod%, parable, or type. Macknight 
paraphrases it thus: “From whence on this occasion he received him, by 
being hindered from slaying him, even in order to his being a type of 
Christ.” As we have here the testimony of the apostle to the fact that 
Abraham’s sacrifice was adumbrative of the offering of Christ on Cal- 
vary for the sins of the world, we deem it unnecessary to dwell upon 
the many striking points of analogy between the type and antitype. 

4. On the subject of the sacrifices of the patriarchs, the case of Job 
is worthy of particular attention. 

With regard to the period in which this patriarch lived, there has 
been considerable controversy. Some have supposed that he lived sub- 
sequent to the giving of the law; but the more probable opinion is that 
he was contemporary with Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. At any rate, he 
does not appear to have been acquainted with the Mosaic ritual, or we 
might reasonably expect to find connected with his history some allusion 
to the giving of the law. 

It is true, some have contended, and Dr. A. Clarke among tne num- 
ber, that the circumstance of Job offering “burnt-offerings” to God is 
a proof that he was acquainted with the Mosaic institution, and conse- 
quently that he lived subsequently to the exodus from Egypt. But, in 


218 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pinas 


reply to this, it may be said that Abraham and Noah also presented 
“burnt-offerings” to God, and the same argument would prove that 
they also were acquainted with the Mosaic institution, which we know 
‘to be contrary to the fact of the history. The most consistent opinion 
is, that Job was contemporary with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, and that 
we have in his history a comment upon the patriarchal religion, pre- 
vious to the general spread of idolatry among the descendants of Noah. 

An account of the sacrifice of Job is recorded in Job i. 5: “And it 
was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent 
and sanctified them, [his sons and daughters,] and rose up early in the 
morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of them 
all; for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God 
in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.” That this mode of sacri- 
fice was the regular practice of Job, and that the decided testimony is 
that he was pious and exemplary, are sufficient evidence that he was 
acting in obedience to a divine command, received through tradition or 
otherwise. But the fact that the supposition that his sons might have 
sinned was given as the reason for the sacrifice, is clear proof that it 
was expiatory in its character, and a typical representation of the great 
sacrifice of Christ. 

To all that has been said in reference to the divine appointment and 
typical and expiatory character of the sacrifices of the patriarchal dis- 
pensation, it has been objected that the Mosaic history contains no direct 
account of the divine origin, and no express declaration of the expiatory 
character of these sacrifices. It is a sufficient reply to the above, to 
know that Moses does not profess to give a complete history of the patri- 
archal religion. What he says upon the subject is incidental and 
exceedingly brief. There is no express account of any moral code 
being delivered to the patriarchs between the time of the Fall and the 
law of Moses; yet the fact that “Abel’s works were righteous,” and 
Cain’s works “were evil,” is sufficient testimony that God had in some 
way prescribed to them their duty. Even so, the fact that God sanc- 
tionea the patriarchal sacrifices with his express approval, is clear evi- 
dence that they originated not in the invention of men, but in the 
appointment of God. 

Again. we have the direct proof from the New Testament that Moses 
did not think it necessary to give a complete and full account of every 
thing connected with the patriarchal religion. Enoch prophesied con- 
cerning the day of judgment, and Abraham looked for a “heavenly 
inheritance, a better country;” and yet Moses makes no record of the 
prophesying of the one, or of the promise on which the faith of the 


Uh. xvii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 219 


other was based. Therefore we conclude that the above objection 
to the view we have taken of the divine origin, and typical and expia- 
tory character of the animal sacrifices of the ancient patriarchs, is per- 
fectly groundless; and the argument derived from those sacrifices, for 
the vicarious and expiatory character of the death of Christ, is seen to 
be conclusive. : 

III. In the next place, we notice the sacrifices prescribed under the 
Mosaic law. 

The argument for the expiatory character of the death of Christ, 
derived from this source, will not require an extensive and minute 
examination of the entire system of sacrificial worship as it is presented 
in the Mosaic dispensation. If it can be shown that animal sacrifices 
therein enjoined were expiatory in their character, and divinely consti- 
tuted types of the sufferings and death of Christ, the true character of 
the atonement of Christ will be thereby established. 

That we may the better understand the nature and design of the 
sacrifices under the law, we will first notice that the Mosaic law itself 
consisted of three distinct, though connected, parts—the moral, the cere- 
monial, and the political. 

1. The moral law is summarily embraced in the decalogue, but com- 
prehends also all those precepts throughout the books of Moses and the 
prophets, which, being founded on the nature of God and of man, are 
necessarily and immutably obligatory upon all rational and accountable 
creatures, without regard to time, place, or circumstance. In this accep- 
tation of the term, the law of God is essentially the same in all ages; 
and the Patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations are only dif: 
ferent developments or exhibitions of the same grand principles of 
righteousness. 

2. The ceremonial law comprehends that system of forms and relig- 
lous ceremonies which God prescribed for the regulation of the worship 
of the Israelitish nation, and which constituted the peculiar character- 
istic of the Mosaic dispensation. This law had respect to times and 
seasons—to days, months, and years; but it especially embraced the 
regulations of the priesthood, the stated assemblages and regular festi- 
vals of the people, and the entire system of sacrificial worship. 

3. The political law comprehended the civil jurisprudence of the 
Jewish people. This law was of divine appointment, but related pecu- 
liarly to the government of the Israelitish nation. It defined the rights, 
prescribed the mode of settling the controversies, and had jurisdiction 
over the lives of individuals. 

This threefold character of law, under which the Jews, during the 


220 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. BIS 


Mosaic dispensation, were placed, must render their entire legal code 
somewhat complex ; and admonish us that when sin is spoken of with 
them, it must be the transgression of one or more of these laws; and 
care should be taken to ascertain to what law it has reference. This 
important point being borne in mind, it will not be presumed that the 
taking away of sin through the piacular sacrifices of the ceremonial 
law was properly a moral ablution. As these sacrifices belonged to the 
ceremonial law, it is only contended that they were expiatory in a cere- 
monial sense. The atonement which they made was not a real acquittal 
from the guilt of moral transgression: it was a ceremonial cleansing. 
The distinction here specified is clearly recognized by St. Paul, in Heb. 
x. 4: “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
take away sins.” Here the apostle is evidently speaking of the removal 
of moral guilt, or sin, in view of the moral law. This, ceremonial sac- 
rifices could only remove in a ceremonial, not a moral, sense. 

In Heb. ix. 13, the apostle speaks of the ceremonial cleansing and 
expiation of the sacrifices of the law in these words: “For if. the blood 
of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh,” ete. Here we perceive that the 
same sacrifices which we had just seen could not remove moral pollu- 
tion, or cleanse the conscience, were efficacious in the removal of cere- 
monial pollution, or in the cleansing of the body. Now, if it can be 
shown that the sacrifices under the law were expiatory in a ceremonial 
point of view, and that this ceremonial expiation was typical of the only 
proper expiation for sin under the gospel, the argument from this sub- 
ject for the expiatory character of the death of Christ will then be 
sufficiently manifest. 

It should farther be remembered, that it is not necessary to this argu- 
ment that all the sacrifices of the law should be shown to be ex piatory 
in their character. Some of them were eucharistic, and others were 
nere incidental purifications of persons or things. — All that is requisite 
to cur argument is to show that there were some sacrifices which were 
expiatory and typical. Nor is it necessary to show that their expiatory 
character related to the law in every sense of the word; to show that 
it related to it in either the political, ceremonial, or moral sense, will be 
all that is required. To accomplish this, we think, will not be difficult, 

To bring forward all the passages properly bearing upon this subject, 
would be unnecessarily tedious; we shall therefore only select a few. 

(1) First, we refer to the yearly feast of expiration, Lev. xvi. 30, 34: 
“For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse 
you, that ye may be clean from all your sina before the Lord. And this 


02. xvii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. mon 


shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the 
children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year.” 

Now, let it be remembered that death, according to the law, is the 
penalty of sin, and that an atonement is here made by the offering of 
slain victims for all the sins of the people, and the inference is plain 
that, through the death of the animals, the people were saved from death, 
which was the penalty incurred by their sins; consequently the death 
of the victims was vicarious—in the stead of the death of the people; 
and also expiatory—it removed, ceremonially, their sins from them. 

That this atonement was a substitution of the life of the victim for 
that of the sinner, may farther be seen from Levy. xv. 31: “Thus shall 
ye separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness, that they die 
not in their uncleanness.” 

(2) Again, the ceremony in reference to the scape-goat on the solemn 
anniversary of expiation, is peculiarly expressive of the transfer or . 
removal of the sins of the people. The priest was to “put his hands 
on the head of the goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the 
children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting 
them upon the head of the goat;” and then he was to “send the goat away 
by a fit man into the wilderness.” If this ceremony was not indicative 
of an expiation or removal of sin, it will be difficult to perceive in it 
any meaning whatever. 

(3) The celebrated feast of the Passover, instituted in commemoration 
of the deliverance of the Israelites, when the angel smote the first-born 
of Egypt, clearly shows that the life of the sinner was preserved by 
the death of the victim. The lamb was slain, and its blood sprinkled 
upon the posts of the doors; and wherever the blood was sprinkled, the 
destroying angel passed over and spared the lives of all within the 
house. Thus, by the blood of the slain lamb, was the Jife of the Israel- 
ite preserved. 

IV. In the last place, upon this subject, we come to notice the lan- 
guage of the New Testament, in reference to the connection between the 
sacrifices of the law and the offering of himself by Christ as the great 
sacrifice for sin. 

So full and pointed is the comment of St. Paul in his Epistle to the 
Hebrews, that it is difficult to conceive how any one can read that Kpistle, 
and not be convinced that .ae Mosaic sacrifices were typical of the 
vicarious and expiatory sacrifice of Christ. 

Heb. vii. 27: “Who needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer 
up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for this he 
did once, when he offered up himself.” Heb. ix. 14: “How much more 


222 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 3 


shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself 
without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve 
the living God.” Heb. ix. 22-28: “And almost all things are by the 
law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remassion. 
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens 
should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with 
better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy 
places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into 
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: nor yet that 
he should offer himself often, as the high-priest entereth into the holy 
place every year with blood of others; for then must he often have suf- 
fered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the 
world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. So 
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.” Heb. x. 10: “ By the 
which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus 
Christ once for all.” Heb. x. 12: “But this man, after he had offered 
one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God.” Heb. 
x. 14: “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are 
sanctified.” 

In the passages above quoted, the vicarious and expiatory character 
of the death of Christ, as typified by the sacrifices under the Mosaic 
law, is so clearly shown that, if we deny this doctrine, we may despair 
of ever finding a consistent meaning to these scriptures. 

As corroborative testimony upon the subject before us, it may not be 
amiss to refer to the sacrifices of heathen nations. From what has 
already been said in reference to the origin of animal sacrifices, it will 
follow that, however much the institution has been perverted, the hea- 
then nations have all derived their first notions upon this subject from 
revelation, transmitted through tradition. History testifies that scarce 
a nation has been known, either in ancient or modern times, that was not 
in the practice of offering sacrifices for the purpose of propitiating the 
Deity. Many of them went so far as, on occasions of great emergency, 
to effer up human victims. This was the case with the Phenicians, the 
Persians, the Egyptians, the Carthaginians, and also the learned Greeks 
and the civilized Romans; hence Cesar, in his Commentaries, states it 
as the doctrine of the Druids, that “unless the life of man were given 
for the life of men, the immortal gods would not be appeased.” 

Dr. Priestley has denied that heathen nations pretended to expiate 
sin by animal sacrifice; but he has met with a pointed rebuke from Dr. 
Magee, who directly charges him either with culpable ignorance or 
anfairness. Nor is he more leniently treated in the hands of Dr. Dick, 


Ch. xvii j THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 22¢ 


in his “ Lectures,” who says: “Either Dr. Priestley, who has made the 
strange assertion which I am now considering, had never read the his- 
tory of the various nations of the human race, and in this case was 
guilty of presumption and dishonesty in pronouncing positively concern- 
ing their tenets; or, he has published to the world, with a view to 
support his own system, what he must have known to be utterly false. 
It would disgrace a school-boy to say that the heathens knew nothing 
of expiatory sacrifices.” 

The argument for the vicarious and expiatory character of the death 
of Christ, based upon the system of sacrifice, though not the main depend- 
ence of the advocates for the true doctrine of the atonement, must be 
seen, we think, from what has been said, to possess considerable force. 
Let it be remembered that the patriarchal and Mosaic sacrifices were of 
divine appointment; let the circumstances connected with the offerings 
of Abel, of Noah, of Abraham, and of Job, be well considered; let the 
institution of the Passover, and all the sacrifices under the law, be con- 
templated, together with the duties of the divinely constituted priesthood 
of the Jews; let the piacular offerings of the heathens be taken into 
consideration; and then let the declarations of the New Testament, 
especially of the Epistle to the Hebrews, be consulted, and the manner 
in which sacrificial terms are applied to the death of Christ, and we 
think that the conviction must force itself upon the mind of the unpreju- 
diced, that, unless the whole system of patriarchal and Mosaic sacrifices 
was unmeaning mummery, and the writers of the New Testament 
designed to mislead their readers, the death of Christ upon the cross 
was a properly vicarious offering, in the room and stead of sinners, as an 
expiation for their sins. 

The denial of this proposition would at once mar the beautiful 
symmetry which pervades the entire system of revelation, and render 
perfectly unmeaning, or force a far-fetched and unnatural construction 
upon, the institutions and a great portion of the word of God. Its 
admission beautifully and harmoniously connects the law and the gospel, 
the old and the new dispensations, and stamps the entire code of reve 
lation with the sacred impress of consistency and truth. 


22 


4 


QUESTIONS ON 


QveEstiow 1. In what light has the Chris- 


2. 


tian doctrine of atonement gene- 
rally been presented by infidels? 

What is the grand and leading prop- 
osition expressive of the true doc- 
trine of the atonement proposed to 
be established? 


. What are the Socinian and Arian 


hypotheses on this subject? 


. What do we understand by the 


phrase, meritorious and procuring 
cause of salvation? 


. How may it be shown that the 


promise concerning “the seed of 
the woman” contained an intima- 
tion of this doctrine? 


. What was the origin of the patri- 


archal sacrifices ? 


. How is this proved? 
. What is the evidence from the sacri- 


fice of Abel? 


. OF Noah? 

. Of Abraham? 

. Of Job? 

. What is the grand objection to the 


divine origin of sacrifices? 
How 1s it answered? 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


(Pp. i. B38 


CHAPTER XVII. 


rs 


What is necessary to be proved, in 
order that the argument for the 
atonement, from the Mosaic sacri- 
fices, may be conclusive? 


. What are the three distinct parts of 


which the Mosaic law consisted ? 


. What is meant by each? 
. What is the distinction between a 


moral and a ceremonial expia-- 
tion? 


. What is the evidence that St. Paul 


made this distinction? 


. Is it contended that al! the sacrifices 


of the law were expiatory? 


. What is the Scripture proof in refer 


ence to the yearly expiation? 


. In reference to the scape-goat? 


In reference to the Passover? 


. What are the allusions from the New 


Testament? 


. What is the probable origin of hea- 


then sacrifices? 


. What is the proof from them? 


Has the piacular character of hea 
then sacrifices been denied ? 


. What has been replied? 
. How is the argument summed up? 


Ob rvin.| THE ALTONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 225 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE— EXPIATORY CHARACTER OF THE 
DEATH OF CHRIST. 


In the preceding chapter, the proper nature of the atonement has 
been argued from the typical institution of the sacrifices of the Old Tes- 
lament; but, as has already been intimated, clear and conclusive as the 
evidence from that source may be, it is not the principal reliance of the 
advocates for the true doctrine of the atonement. 

As the first dawn of morning light is succeeded by an increasing 
brilliancy, till the earth is illumed by the full glories of mid-day, even 
so the great doctrine of redemption through the blood of the everlasting 
covenant, which at first faintly gleamed from the illustrious promise of 
“the seed of the woman,” continued to shine, with still increasing luster, 
through the consecrated medium of the types and shadows, the smoking 
altars, and bleeding victims, of the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations; 
till, at length, under the superior light and more glorious developments 
of gospel day, we behold the clear fulfillment of ancient predictions, the 
infallible comment upon the divinely instituted types, and the most 
explicit revelation of the great mystery of salvation, through the merits 
of the vicarious and piacular oblation of God’s Messiah. 

For a correct view of the doctrine of the atonement, we are not left 
to reason from ancient predictions and Jewish types alone, but we are 
furnished with an abundance of the plainest and most direct testimony. 
Let the true point of vontroversy be now borne in mind. That Christ 
died for us in such sense as to confer benefit upon us, Socinians, Arians, 
Unitarians, etc., admit; but the doctrine for which we contend is, 2. 
That he died for us as a proper sudstitute—in our room and stead. 2. 
That his death was propitiatory—a proper expiation, or atonement, for our 
sins. ‘These are the points which are strenuously denied, especially by 
those who also deny the proper divinity of Christ; but, that they are 
expressly taught in the Scriptures, we shall now endeavor to show. 

Now, the point is, to show that Christ died for us, as a proper substi 
bute. 

15 


226 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Ps By. 


I. Our first argument ts founded upon those passages in which Christ 
is expressly declared to have died for us. . 

1. That the preposition v7ép, translated for, sometimes merely signifies 
on account of, or, for the advantage of, is admitted; but that it also 
implies instead of, and that such is its meaning, as applied to the subject 
in hand, in the Scriptures, is what we shall endeavor to prove. 

(1) That it is so used by the Grecian classics, cannot be disputed 
Raphelius, in his “Annotations,” affirms that “the Socinians will n it 
find one Greek writer to support a different interpretation.” One or twe 
quotations are all we shall adduce: “ Would you be willing b7ép tobtov 
ano8aveiv,” to die For this boy?—that is, would you be willing to die in 
his stead? —to save his life by the sacrifice of your own? Again: 
"AvtiAoxyog Tob Tatpo¢ bnepanobavev — “Antilochus, dying for his 
father,” obtained such glory, that he alone among the Greeks was 
called @cAoratwp. The context in these passages admits of no other 
construction than that of a proper substitution. (See Xenophon De Cyri 
Exped. et De Venat.) 

(2) But that such is the sense of the preposition in the New Testa: 
ment, may be seen from John xi. 50. Caiaphas said: “It is expedient 
for us that one man (a70Odvy duep Tod Aaod) should die for the people, 
and that the whole nation perish not.” The meaning evidently here is, 
that the life of Christ should be taken to save the lives of the nation 
from the vengeance of the Romans. Rom. v. 7: “For scarcely (i7ép) 
for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure (irép) for a good 
man some would even dare to die.” Here the sense is plainly that of 
substitution—the life of one man for that of another. But see the next 
verse: “ But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were 
yet sinners, (Xprato¢ brép jody éréBave,) Christ died for us.” Now, if 
brép, in the preceding verse, meant a plain substitution of life for life, 
it must, in all fairness of criticism, mean the same here, for it is a con- 
tinuation of the same argument. 

2 Cor. v. 21: “For he hath made him to be sin (imép NOV) for us, 
who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in 
him.” Here the sense evidently is, that Christ was made a sin- ffering, 
as a substitute for us. In no other sense can it be said that he “was 
made sin.” The word duapriay, here rendered sin, is by Macknight and 
others translated sin-offering. So it is frequently used in the Septuagint. 
So also it is used in Heb. ix. 28: “And unto them that look for him 
shall he appear the second time, (ywpl¢ djaptiac,) without a sin-offering, 
unto salvation.” The scope of the apostle’s argument will admit of no 
other interpretation So also it is used in Heb. xiii. 11: “For the 


Ch. xviii.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 227 


bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the 
high-priest for (duaptiag) a sin-offering.” Now, it is clear, that the 
blood of beasts was offered “for sin” in no other sense than that of 
an expiation or atonement. Hence we perceive that Christ was “made 
sin for us” ia no other sense than that of a vicarious offering. 1 Pet. 
iii. 18: “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just (dmép) for 
(or, instead of) the unjust.” Pum. v. 6: “For when we were yet with- 
out strength, in due time Christ died (t7ép, instead of, or) for the 
ungodly.” 2 Cor. v.15: “And that he died (irép) for (or, instead of ) 
all.” Heb. ii. 9: “That he by the grace of God should taste death 
(inép) for (or, instead of ) every man.” 1 Tim. ii. 6: “Who gave him- 
self a ransom (inép raévtwr) for (or, instead of ) all.” 

2, Again: from the use of the Greek preposition dvr, we may also 
infer that the sufferings of Christ were vicarious. That this preposition 
implies commutation and substitution, we may see from Matt. v. 38: 
“An eye (dvtt) for (or, instead of ) an eye, and a tooth (dvr?) for (or, 
tnstead of) a tooth.” Also, see Matt. ii. 22: “Archelaus did reign in 
Judea (dvtt) in the room of his father Herod.” Now let us see how 
this same preposition is used in reference to our Lord. Matt. xx. 28: 
“ Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to min- 
ister, and to give his life a ransom (dv?) for (or, instead of ) many.” 

If the foregoing quotations do not prove that Christ died as a substi- 
tute for us, we may confidently affirm that they prove nothing. 

IJ. In the next place, to prove that the death of Christ was both 
vicarious and propitiatory, we appeal to those passages which speak of 
his dying for our sins. 

Isa. liii. 4-6: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor- 
rows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But 
he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : 
the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are 
healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one 
to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” 
Verses 10 and 11: “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put 
him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall 
see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord 
shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and 
shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant ey 
many, for he shall bear their iniquities.” 

The passage just quoted is as plain and pointed as language will 
admit. Had the prophet written for the express purpose of vindicating 
the doctrine of atonement from the Socinian perversion, we do not see 


228 ELEMENTS. OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B/S. 


how he cuuld have more strongly presented the vicarious and expiatory 
character of the death of Christ. Observe, here, our Lord is said to 
have “borne our griefs and carried our sorrows;” our iniquity is said to 
have been “laid on him;” and he is said to “bear the iniquities of many.” 

In all this there is doubtless an allusion to the ceremony in reference 
to the scape-goat, upon which the priest laid his hands, and confessed 
over it the sins of the people, and then sent it away into the wilderness; 
but there is evidently more implied here than the bare removal of sin. 
This is implied, but the most emphatic meaning of the language is the 
bearing of the punishment due to sin. That this is the meaning of the 
phrase “to bear sin or iniquity” in the Scriptures, may be seen frem 
Ley. xxii. 9; “They shall therefore keep mine ordinance, lest they bear 
sin for it, and die therefore, if they profane it.” Here, to bear sin was 
to be exposed to death, the penalty of sin. See, also, Eze. xviii. 20: 
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear (die for) 
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear (die for) the 
iniquity of the son.” 

Thus it will appear that, by our Saviour bearing our iniquities, as 
seen in the passage from Isaiah, we are plainly taught that he bore the 
punishment due to us on account of our iniquities; consequently his 
sufferings were vicarious and expiatory. Again, it is said: “He was 
stricken, smitten of God, wounded, bruised, chastised; it pleased the Lord 
to bruise him,” etc. Language cannot more plainly declare that the 
sufferings of Christ were a penal infliction for our sins. Again, by his 
sufferings we here learn that we procure “peace,” “we are healed,” we 
are “justified;” all of which testify that his death was properly propi- 
tiatory. 

There is an allusion to this passage in Isaiah in 1 Pet. ii. 24: “Who 
his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being 
dead to sins, should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were 
healed.” Here the expiatory character of the death of Christ is clear 
from the effects resulting from it. By it we are said to be “dead to 
sins,” “alive unto righteousness,” and to be “healed.” 

In Gal. iii. 13, we read: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of 
the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every 
one that hangeth on a tree.” The law had said: “Cursed is every one 
that continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law 
to do them.” Consequently, as “add had sinned, and come short of the 
glory of God,” all were exposed to this curse; therefore, as Christ, in 
this sense, became a curse for us, he must have suffered in our room. on 
account of our sins. 


Ch. xviii.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 229 


Rom. iv. 25: “Who was delivered for our offenses.” Here our 
offenses are presented as the antecedent cause of the sufferings of 
Christ; consequently they were expiated by his death. 

III. Next, we refer to some of those passages which speak of recon 
eiliation, propitiation, etc., as connected with the sufferings of Christ. 

1 John ii. 2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for 
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” Col. i. 20: “And 
having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all 
things unto himself.” Rom. iii. 25: “Whom God hath set forth to be 
a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for 
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” 
Rom. v.11: “By whom we have now received the (cataAAayiyv) atone- 
ment,” (or reconciliation.) 

The amount of these passages is equivalent to what is implied in 
being “saved from wrath through him”—that is, delivered from expos- 
ure to the penalty of his punitive justice. Again, we would notice 
some of those passages in which the salvation of the gospel is spoken 
of under the appellation of redemption. 1 Pet.i.18,19: “Ye were not 
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain 
conversation, received by tradition from your fathers; but with the 
’ precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” 
Eph. i. 7: “In whom we have redemption through his blood.” The 
Greek words Avtpéw, droAdtpwore, properly imply the liberation of a 
captive by the payment of a ransom, or some consideration, without 
which he could not have been liberated; therefore we are here taught 
that the death of Christ is the procuring cause of salvation. 

TV. Lastly, we notice that justification, or the remission of sin, and 
sanctification, are said to be connected with the death of Christ. 

Acts xiii. 88, 89: “Through this man is preached unto you the for- 
gwveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, 
from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” 1 John i. 7: 
“The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” Rev.i.5: 
“Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his wn blood.” 
Matt. xxvi. 28: “For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is 
shed for many, for the remission of sins.” Eph. i.7: “In whom we have 
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness uf sins, according to the 
riches of his grace.” Rom. v. 9: “Much more then, being now just 
fied by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” 

The evidence from Scripture for the vicarious and expiatory charae- 
ter of the death of Christ might be extended much farther, but we deem 
it unnecessary. If persons are disposed to abide by the express decla 


230 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Ps 15.3, 


rations uf Scripture, what has already been adduced is sufficient ; but 
if they are determined, at all hazards, to spurn the Bible doctrine of the 
atonement, they may, if they choose, form a creed to suit their own 
notions, and enjoy the luxury of fancying that it is the “perfection of 
beauty,” however adverse it may be to the teachings of revelation. We 
think we may safely say that, had the inspired writers designed 
expressly to teach the vicarious and propitiatory character of the death 
of Christ, the passages we have adduced are admirably adapted to the 
accomplishment of that }urpose; but had they designed to teach an 
opposite doctrine, it will be a difficult task to vindicate them from such 
a degree of ignorance of language, or disingenuousness of purpose, as 
would utterly discredit their claims to inspiration. 

V. Having now established from the Scriptures the grand and 
leading principles of the atonement, as based upon the vicarious and 
expiatory character of the death of Christ, as the meritorious and _pro- 
curing cause of salvation, we proceed, next, to illustrate more particu- 
larly the reasonableness and propriety of the whole scheme. 

From what has already been said in reference to the necessity for the 
atonement, as originating in the principles of the divine administration, 
it will necessarily follow that, after man had violated the law of God, 
there was but one possible way in which the threatened penalty could, 
in any degree, be averted or removed, and guilty man rescued from the 
opening jaws of impending ruin. And we now inquire, What was that 
way of escape? What was the only door of hope to a ruined world? 
We answer, it was that something different from the precise penalty 
should be substituted, which would answer, as fully as the threatened 
penalty itself, all the legitimate purposes of the divine government. 
Now if it can be shown that the sufferings of Christ, in our room and 
stead, meet this requirement, and perfectly secure all the ends of the 
divine administration, the propriety of the great scheme of atonement 
which we have presented will at once be manifest, and the plan will 
be opened up to our view “by which God can be just, and yet the jus- 
tifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” 

That the point now proposed may be clearly presented, it will be 
necessary for us to inquire what are the grand purposes of the divine 
government. These are— 

1. To show God’s hatred to sin, arising from the holiness of his 
nature. This is essential, in order that his holy and excellent character 
may oe known and revered by his intelligent creatures. For if their 
happiness be connected with their duty, and their paramount duty be 
love to God, it is plain that they cannot be led to the exercise of that 


Ch. xviii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 23) 


love unless his character be presented to them in its native excellence 
and purity, as it was proclaimed unto Moses—“ The Lord, the Lord 
God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness 
and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, and trans- 
gression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty.” 

2. Another end of the divine government is, to show God’s deter- 
mination to punish the sinner. This is essential, that he may maintain 
dominion over the intelligent creation, and prevent general anarchy and 
rebellion, and consequent destruction, throughout all parts of the moral 
universe. If the “morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God 
shouted for joy,” at the birth of creation, may we not reasonably sup- 
pose that they were spectators of the fall of man? And what, we ask, 
would have been the effect upon, perhaps, millions of worlds, had the 
Almighty failed to require the penalty of the violated Jaw? Would 
they not all have received license to sin with impunity? And would 
not the result probably have been fatal to the inhabitants of innumera- 
ble worlds? Therefore we conclude that the mercy of God, much more 
his justice, demanded satisfaction for a broken law, that the divine 
determination to punish sin might be strikingly exhibited for the safety 
and happiness of myriads of intelligent and accountable creatures, 
formed for happiness in communion with God. 

Thus it appears to us that the two particulars above presented exhibit 
the grand ends of the divine government. Now if it can be made to 
appear that the sufferings and death of Christ, as a substitute, will sub- 
serve these purposes, as fully as the exact penalty threatened in its pre- 
cise kind and degree, then it will follow that, by this arrangement, the 
honor of the divine throne may be sustained, the demands of justice 
satisfied, and yet mercy be extended to a fallen world. All this, we 
conceive, is fully accomplished in the divine plan and arrangement, as 
set forth through the merits of the crucified Immanuel. 

That such is the fact, will more fully appear by the examination of 
several particulars. 

(1) Consider the exalted character of Christ. Here we must view 
him as Mediator—as God-man, possessing all excellency and perfection ; 
as “the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his 
person.” But we must also contemplate him in the endearing relation 
of the Son—the only Son—the well-beloved Son of God. For the 
Almighty to let fall his wrath upon a character so exalted, and so 
dearly beloved, rather than to violate the claims of justice, or give coun- 
tenance to sin, surely is a far more illustrious exhibition of the holiness 
of his character, and his settled purpose not to clear the guilty at the 


232 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 3 


sacrifice of correct principle, than could have been presented by the 
eternal punishment of the whole human family. 

(2) Notice the freeness with which Christ was delivered up by the 
Father, and with which he consented to suffer for us. Man had no claims 
upon God. God was under no obligations to man. All was free, 
unmerited mercy and compassion. God saw and pitied us, and ran to 
our relief. The Saviour voluntarily laid duwn his life. Surely these 
facts enhance the value of the sacrifice, and tend gloriously to exhibit 
the extent of the love, the holiness of the nature, and the sacredness or 
the justice of God. 

(3) Next, notice the nature and extent of the sufferings of Christ. We 
do not pretend to say that he suffered, either in kind or degree, precisely 
the same that man would be required to suffer, if deprived of the benefits 
of redemption. Far from it, indeed. The very idea is monstrous and 
absurd. 

He could not suffer the same kind of torment. One of the principal 
ingredients in the cup which the miserably damned are to drink, is the 
bitterness of remorse. This the Saviour could not taste. 

Neither d» we believe that he suffered to the same extent that man 
would have been required to suffer, had no atonement been provided. 
We cannot believe it: in the first place, because there is no intimation 
of the kind in the Bible; and, in the second place, because we think it 
unnecessary, unreasonable, and absurd. It was unnecessary, because 
of the superior merits of Christ. The value and efficacy of his atone- 
ment result mainly, not from the intensity of his sufferings, but the dig- 
nity of his character. It was the humanity, and not the divinity, which 
suffered. The humanity was the sacrifice, but the divinity was the 
altar on which it was offered, and by which the gift was sanctified. 
The sufferings were finite in their extent, but the sacrifice was of infinite 
value, by reason of the mysterious hypostatic union with the divinity. 

(4) Again: the hypothesis is unreasonable and absurd, because it 
would mar the glorious exhibition of divine love in redemption. For 
if the full and exact penalty due to man, in kind and degree, was 
endured by the Saviour, where is the manifestation of the Father’s 
benevolence? Redemption, upon this supposition, would not be a scheme ° 
of grace, so far as the Father is concerned; but merely a transfer of 
misery to a different object—from the guilty to the innocent. But, fur- 
thermore, an endless degree of punishment was due to man; consequently 
this punishment was infinite, at least in duration. But the sufferings 
of Christ, as they were not infinite in duration, so neither could they 
have been infinite in extent; otherwise they never could have termi 


Ch xviii. ] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. . 282 


nated. Infinite means without limit. But his sufferings were limited— 
they came to an end; consequently they could not have been infinite. 
Had they continued even an hour longer than they did, with their 
greatest intensity, it is evident they would have been greater, in the 
aggregate, than they were; therefore they were not infinite in extent. 
All the infinitude connected with them is applicable to the dignity cf 
the sufferer, and not to the intensity of the agony. 

(5) And if it be objected that the atonement cannot be satisfactery 
to justice, unless it equal the original penalty in the extent of suffering 
we reply, that the same argument would prove that it must also corre. 
spond with the original penalty in the kind, as well as the degree, of 
misery; which we have seen to be impossible. All that is necessary is, 
that the sufferings be such as justice can accept as an adequate satisfiae- 
tion, in the character of a substitute, for the original penalty. All that 
may be lacking in the extent of the suffering is amply made up in the 
superior, yea, the infinite dignity, of the sufferer. But, after all, we 
freely admit that the agony of our blessed Lord was great, beyond the 
power of language to describe, or of mere man to endure. “It pleased 
the Father to bruise him;” and he bore the fierceness of the wrath of 
Almighty God. 

(6) On the subject now under consideration, the following observations 
of a learned divine are appropriate and satisfactory: 

“But how, it may be asked again, could the sufferings of Jesus 
Christ satisfy for the sins of ‘a great multitude which no man can num- 
ber, out of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues’? The 
common answer is, that the transcendent value of his sufferings was the 
consequence of the dignity of his nature, and it seems to be sufficient. 
His sufferings were limited in degree, because the nature in which he 
endured them was finite; but their merit was infinite, because the suf. 
fering nature was united to the Son of God, (the divinity.) An-idea, 
however, seems to prevail, that his sufferings were the same in degree 
with those to which his people (all mankind) were liable; that he suf. 
fered not only in their room, but that quantum of pain and sorrow 
which, if he had not interposed, they should have suffered in their own 
persons through eternity; and so far has this notion been carried by 
some, that they have maintained that his sufferings would have been 
greater or less if there had been one more or one fewer to be redeemed, 
According to this system, the value of his sufferings arose, not from the 
dignity of his person, but from his power. The use of his divine per: 
son in this case was, not to enhance the merit of his sufferings, but tc 
strengthen him to bear them. If this is true, it was not necessary that 


234 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pin Bes 


he should have taken human nature into personal union with himself; 
it was only necessary that he should have sustained it; and this he 
could have done, although it had subsisted by itself. That the suffer- 
ings of the man Christ Jesus were greater than those which a mere 
mortal could have borne, will be readily granted; but, although it does 
not become us to set limits to Omnipotence, yet we cannot conceive 
him, I think, considered simply as a man, to have sustained the whole 
load of divine vengeance, which would have overwhelmed countless 
myriads of men through an everlasting duration. By its union to him- 
self, his human nature did not become infinite in power; it was not even 
endowed with the properties of an angel, but continued the same essen- 
tially with human nature in all other men.” (Dick’s Theology.) 

Those who imagine that Christ endured all the pain which “the mil- 
lions of the redeemed were doomed to endure throughout the whole of 
their being,” have taken an improper view of the whole subject. They 
have considered “our sins to be debts in a literal sense, and the suffer- 
ings of Christ to be such a payment as a surety makes in pounds, shil- 
lings, pence, and farthings.” 

Those who have represented “that one drop of the blood of Christ 
would have been sufficient to redeem the world,” have erred on the 
opposite extreme. According to this, it might well be asked why he 
thed so many drops as he did, or why he “poured out his soul unto 
death.” Therefore, while we admit that the sufferings of Christ were 
inconceivably great, we cannot believe that they were infinite in degree. 
Their transcendent value resulted from the union of the divine with the 
human nature. 

From what has been said, we think it must appear that, through 
the sufferings and death of Christ, in our room and stead—although 
something different is accepted, instead of the exact penalty origin- 
ally denounced—the ends of the divine government are fully 
answered, the holiness of God is exhibited, the claims of justice satis- 
fied, and thus “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and 
peace have kissed each other;” and a new and living way is opened 
up for the extension of mercy to fallen man. All difficulties being 
removed—the law being “ magnified and made honorable’—God can 
stoop to fallen man with offers of pardon, and the throne of justice 
stands secure. 

VI. We conclude the present chapter by noticing a few of the prom- 
inent objections which have been urged against the view here taken of 
the atonement. 

1. It has been said “that it is derogatory to the divine character te 


Ch. xviii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS NATURE. 25a 


suppose that God was angry with the human family, and could only be 
induced to love them by the death of his own Son.” 

To this we reply, that the doctrine of the atonement sets forth no 
such idea, It is true the divine justice demanded satisfaction, or the 
punishment of the criminal; and this fixed principle of the divine 
administration to punish the guilty is, in Scripture, denominated the 
anger, or indignation, of God; but no intelligent divine ever taught or 
believed that the Almighty is liable to be perturbed by the rage of that 
passion, in the sense in which it exists with men. This is so far from 
being true, that “God loved the world” with “the love of pity,” or 
compassion, perhaps quite as much before the atonement was made as 
after it; yea, it was his love that induced him to send his Son to die 
for us; and therefore it is plain that this objection is founded upon a 
false assumption. 

2. It has been objected “that it is contrary to justice to punish the 
innocent for the guilty.” 

To this we reply, that if the innocent sufferer undertakes voluntarily, 
in view of a rich reward which is to follow and a greater good which is 
to result, there is nothing in it contrary to strict justice, as recognized 
in the practice of the wisest and best of our race in all ages. The 
objection now under consideration must come with a bad grace from 
believers in the truth of revelation; for if it be unjust for the innocent 
to be punished in the room of the guilty, it must be unjust for the inno- 
cent to be punished under any circumstances. The ground of the injus- 
tice, if there be any, is not that the innocent is punished jor the guilty, 
but that he is punished at all. Now, if we believe in the truth of reve- 
lation, we are compelled to admit, 1. That Christ was perfectly innocent 
—‘“he did no sin.” 2. That he was punished—“it pleased the Father 
to bruise him.” These are facts which we must discard our Bible 
before we can dispute. 

The only question, then, for us to determine is, whether it comports 
more with the principles of strict justice, the purity of the divine admin- 
istration, and the general tenor of Scripture, to say that the innocent 
Saviour was punished with the most excruciating pangs for no good 
cause—for no assignable reason whatever—or, to contend, as we have 
done, that his sufferings were voluntarily entered upon, in the room and 
stead of a guilty world of sinners, who had incurred the penalty of a 
violated law, from which they could only be released by the admis- 
sion of asubstitute. That the former position is far more objectionable 
than the latter, we think cannot be disputed. If we admit the former, 
we assume a ground in direct opposition to the plainest principles of 


236 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B.3 


justice, as recognized by all enlightened governments upon earth, and 
as set forth in the Holy-Seriptures; if we admit the latter, we are sus- 
tained by the theory and practice of the wisest and best of mankind, as 
well as the plain teachings of Holy Writ. Therefore the objection may 
be dismissed, as deserving no farther reply. 

3. It has been objected that the view we have taken of the atonement 
is ‘contrary to the admitted facts that all men suffer, more or less, the 
penalty of the violated law in this life, and that some will still continue 
ty suffer it in a future state.” 

(1) Now it is contended by the objector, that if Christ suffered this 
penalty in our room and stead, all for whom he suffered should be 
immediately and forever released therefrom; otherwise a double pay- 
ment of the claims of justice is exacted, which would be unreasonable 
and derogatory to the divine administration. The objection here pre- 
sented lies with full force against the view taken of the atonement by 
the Antinomians and many of the Calvinists, but it can have no appli- 
cation to that view of the subject which we have presented, and which 
we believe to be the scriptural account. 

(2) Upon the supposition that Christ discharged the exact penalty 
of the law due from man, in the sense in which a surety would liquidate 
the debt of an insolvent individual, by the payment of the full demand 
in dollars and cents, it would most certainly follow that the debtor would 
be at once and forever discharged from all obligations to the creditor, 
and justice would require that all for whom the atonement was made 
should have immediate and complete deliverance from the penalty of 
the law which they had incurred. But such is far from being the true * 
presentation of the subject. The very idea of a substitute implies that 
something different from the exact penalty is admitted in its place. And 
here it must also be confessed, that in the admission of Christ as a sub- 
stitute, there is a relaxation of the rigor of law; for the Almighty was 
under no obligations to admit any compromise or commutation what- 
ever, and, in strict justice, might have rejected every substitute, and 
enforced with rigor the threatened penalty, to the last jot and tittle. 
But, at the same time, be it remembered, that the admitted -zelaxation 
of law was such as was perfectly consistent with justice, such as was calcu- 
lated to sustain the honor of the divine throne, and such as God might, 
consistently with his character, admit. 

(3) Now, if it be admitted that God was at liberty either to accept 
or reject the substitute, it will follow that he was at liberty to prescribe 
the terms on which the substitute should be accepted. And, as God 
was under no obligations to accept a substitute at all, so he was under 


Sh. xviii.] THE ATONEMENT-—ITS NATURE, 237 


no obligations to extend mercy to the sinner through tue substitute 
And as the efficacy of the substitute, as such, is based entirely on the 
will and appointment of God, even so the blessing of pardon and sal- 
vation through him is based entirely on the unmerited mercy and free 
grace of God, who has condescended freely to bring himself under obli- 
gations, by his own voluntary promise, to extend mercy to man through 
the Mediator. Hence it will follow that, as the admission of the substi- 
tute, and the promise of mercy through him, were acts of pure favon 
and free grace on the part of God, so, also, it must be the prerogative 
of God to fix, by his own will and appointment, not only the decree of 
suffering to be endured by the substitute, in order that the law may be 
“magnified and made honorable,” and salvation be made possible to 
man, but also the condition upon which, and the plan according to 
which, pardon and salvation are to be extended. 

(4) Therefore it is clear that the atonement of Christ, taken in the 
abstract, does not bring God under obligation to extend pardon and 
salvation, absolutely and unconditionally, to any. The obligations of 
God to pardon and save the sinner, upon any terms, result not neces: 
sarily from the atonement, as such, but from the gracious promise which 
God has been pleased freely to make. Now it will follow that, as God 
has not been pleased to promise that all for whom the atonement was 
made shall be immediately and unconditionally pardoned and released 
from the penalty of the law, there is no ground for cavil against the 
doctrine of atonement because all men in the present life suffer to some 
extent, and some in a future state shall suffer to the full extent, the 
penalty of the law. 

Thus it is clear that the objection taken to the view of the atonement, 
from the admitted fact that all for whom it was made are not at once 
and forever released from the penalty of the law, falls to the ground. 

The great truth is, that salvation, through the atonement, is not a 
system either of prevention, or of absolute and immediate deliverance, but 
of deliverance, according to a prescribed plan, which the Scriptures suf: 
fiviently unfold. 


288 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


[P. i. B. 3. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVIII. 


Question 1. What is admitted in ref- 


6. 


erence to the death of Christ, 
by Scsinians, Arians, Unitarians, 
etc. ? 


. What are the points in dispute con- 


tended for in this chapter ? 

What is the first argument presented 
to prove that Christ died as a sub- 
stitute? 


. What are the scriptures adduced? 
. What is the proof from the use of 


the Greek preposition anti? 


What is the first class of texts ap- 


pealed to, to prove that the death 
of Christ was both vicarious and 


expiatory ? 


. What are the scriptures adduced? 
. What passages speak of reconcilia- 


tion, propitiation, etc., as connect- 
ed with the death of Christ? 


. What passages speak of salvation 


under the appellation of redemp- 
tion? 

What passages connect justification, 
remission, sanctification, ete., with 
the death of Christ? 

After man. had sinned, what was the 


12. 


13. 
14. 


15. 


16. 


Live 


only way by which he could be 
released from the penalty? 

How can it be shown that the suf- 
ferings of Christ in our room and 
stead meet the ends of divine gov- 
ernment? 

What are these ends? 

What is said in reference to the ex- 
alted character of Christ? 

In reference to the freeness with 
which he suffered? 

In reference to the nature and ex- 
tent of his sufferings? 

What is the first objection men- 
tioned to the view taken of the 
atonement? 


. How is it answered? 
. What is the second, and how is it 


answered? 


. What is the third, and how is it an 


swered? 


. Is God under obligations to save the 


sinner on any terms? 


. Whence do those obligations origi- 


nate? 


. Is salvation through the atonement 


a system of prevention? 


Ch. six.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 23 


CHAPTER XIX. 
THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT—VARIOUS THEORIES EXHIBITED. 


A CONSIDERATION of the extent of the atonement, or an examination 
of the question, For whom are the benefits of the death of Christ designed? 
opens to our view one of the most interesting and important subjects 
connected with Christian theology. 

From a very early period, upon this subject, the Church has been 
much divided in sentiment; and from the days of Calvin and Arminius 
to the present time, the great contending parties, in reference to the 
subject now before us, have been designated as Calvinists and Ar- 
minians. 

Without, in this place, entering into consideration of the origin and 
history of the controversy here referred to, suffice it to say that the two 
great and learned men above named so systematized and arranged the 
peculiar views for which they contended, in reference to the extent of 
the atonement, and so impressed them with the indelible marks of thei 
comprehensive and gigantic minds, that posterity, by common consent, 
have hitherto connected, and perhaps will still continue to connect, the 
names of Calvin and Arminius with the peculiar systems of doctrine 
for which they respectively contended. 

When we reflect on the great number, extensive erudition, and emi 
nent piety, of the divines who have been enrolled on either side in this 
controversy, we are at once admonished of the propriety of caution and 
calmness in the investigation of this subject, and of respectful forbear- 
ance of feeling toward those with whom we differ in judgment. Yet, 
at the same time, as this is a subject upon which the Bible is by no 
means silent, and one which must be decided by that book alone, and as 
it is made the duty of all to “search the Scriptures” for themselves, we 
may venture, in the fear of God, impartially to examine for ourselves, 
and to bring the points at issue to the test of reason and Scripture. 

To enter minutely into the consideration of all the shades of differ- 
ence in the sentiments, and technicalities of the arguments, which have 
been presented, by such as have been denominated Calvinists or Ar- 
min‘ans, would be an interminable task. Upon no subject in divinity 


240 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.8 


has controversy been more voluminous, and it has seldom been more 
virulent, than too frequently it has been, in the discussion under con- 
sideration. 

Before we enter particularly into the merits of the main question 
between Calvinists and Arminians, it may be proper briefly to advert to 
some of the views entertained by some who have properly belonged to 
neither of the two great divisions of Christians above named. 

With regard to Arians, Socinians, Unitarians, etc., it may here be 
observed, that as they deny the proper divinity of Christ, without which 
he would be incapable of making an atonement, so they deny the native 
depravity of man, without which the atonement would not be necessary ; 
and, in perfect consistency with these principles, they also deny the 
reality of the atonement itself, and consequently there is no place in 
their system for the application of its benefits. 

There is, however, another scheme that we will here briefly notice, 
which, while it admits the native depravity of man, and the reality of 
the atonement through Christ, yet, so far as the application of the ben- 
efits of the atonement is concerned, it is essentially different both from 
Calvinism and Arminianism., We refer to a certain class of Universal- 
ists, who have so construed the extent of the atonement as thereby to 
secure absolute and unconditional salvation to all mankind. As the 
general system of Universalism will be a subject of special considera- 
tion in another place, a very brief reply to the particular feature of that 
system above named is all that we here deem necessary. The scheme 
itself is evidently based upon an erroneous view of the whole matter. 

So to understand the atonement as thereby necessarily to secure the 
absolute and unconditional salvation of all mankind, would represent 
the work of redemption as a commercial transaction between the Father 
and the Son, by which the Son made a fair purchase of the human 
family, by paying down on the cross of Calvary an adequate price for the 
unconditional redemption of the whole world; and that, consequently, 
justice can never have any claim upon any to punish them hereafter. 
It is true, as hereafter may be more fully seen, that many Calvinists 
take the same view of the atonement, only that. they limit it to the elect 
portion of the human family, and, so far as they are concerned, secure, 
by the death of Christ, their absolute and unconditional salvation, while 
the rest of mankind are “passed by,” and left to perish in their sins, 
without the possibility of escape. 

But the whole scheme, whether adopted by Universalists or Calvin 
ists, we conceive to be based upon a false and unscriptural assumption. 
The Scriptures nowhere represent the atonement in the light of a 


wh. xix.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 241 


commercial transaction, but. everywhere it is presented as a governmental 
arrangement. Were we to admit the premises, and take the view here 
presented of the nature of the atonement, then it would inevitably fol- 
low that all for whom the atonement was made would necessarily be 
saved; and the only controversy between Calvinists and Universalists 
would be, to determine whether the atonement was made for all, or only 
for a part; as both parties would be compelled to admit that all for 
whom Christ died to atone would most assuredly be saved. 

That this commercial or credit-and-debtor view of the subject. is 
erroneous and unscriptural, will be obvious when we reflect that it 
tends directly to banish from the scheme of redemption the whole sys- 
tem of grace. If the Saviour has purchased, by the payment of an 
equivalent, the salvation absolute of all for whom he died, then it fol- 
lows that the Father is under obligations, in strict justice, to save them; 
consequently their salvation, so far as God the Father is concerned, 
cannot be of mercy or grace, but of debt; and the entire display of 
the divine benevolence, in the eternal salvation of sinners, is reduced to 
a fiction. 

The truth is, the atonement, of itself, brings the Almighty under no 
obligations to extend salvation to the world. It is true, that without 
the atonement none could be saved; but that alone does not secure iney- 
itably and necessarily the salvation of any. Salvation is emphatically 
of grace. The atonement removes the difficulties which stood in the 
way of man’s salvation. These difficulties were, a broken law, and the 
unsatisfied claims of divine justice. While these barriers were in the 
way, God could not, however much he might have been disposed, con: 
sistently with his nature, extend mercy to man. The removal of these 
impediments—the magnifying of the broken law, and the satisfying of 
the demands of justice—was the great work of the atonement. 

But the great difficulties which, without the atonement, rendered it 
impossible for God to extend mercy to man, being by the atonement 
removed, it does not necessarily follow that God is under obligations to 
extend mercy to man: it only follows that he may, if he please. And 
thus it appears that salvation is all of the free, unmerited grace of God. 
The atonement, considered in the abstract, leaves the Almighty free 
either to extend or withhold pardoning mercy; whereas, without the 
atoneinent, he was not free to extend mercy, but was bound to withhold 
it. All the obligations which God is under, even now, to save the sin- 
ner, flow not necessarily from the atonement, as a matter of debt, but 
from the gracious promise of God, which he has been pleased to make, 
‘through his mere mercy and benevolence. Hence we perceive that the 


16 


242 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Yn BS 


idea that God is under obligations to save all men, unconditionally, on 
account of the atonement of Christ, is so far from being correct, that 
he is, on that account, under no necessary obligations to save any. 

And if the Almighty be free to extend or withhold mercy, according 
to his good pleasure, it necessarily follows that he has a right to fix the 
conditions of salvation as he may please. And as he has promised 
salvation to those who repent and believe, and threatened destruction to 
those who refuse, it is clear that there is no hope for such as reject the 
conditions of salvation as presented in the gospel, but they must perish 
everlastingly; and as we have clearly shown, the Universalist delusion 
must perish with them. 

We will proceed to the consideration of che extent of the atonement, 
in which is involved the great matter of controversy between Calvinists 
and Arminians. We shall not attempt to amplify the subject, so as 
particularly to examine every thing which able divines have presented, 
either as illustration or argument, on either side. It shall be our main 
object to arrange and condense, so as to bring the essential point of 
inquiry to as narrow a compass as possible. 

Notwithstanding Calvinists have differed with each other considerably 
in their manner of presenting this. subject, yet we think this difference 
has generally consisted either in words, or in points not materially 
affecting the main question. There is one great point upon which every 
Calvinistic author of note, so far as we have been able to ascertain, has 
differed from all genuine Arminians. In that great and leading point 
is concentrated the substance of the whole controversy, and upon its 
settlement depends the adjustment of all questions of any real impor- 
tance connected with the subject. The point referred to is embraced in 
the following question: Does the atonement of Christ so extend to all men 
as to make salvation possible for them? By all genuine Calvinists this 
question is answered in the negative; but by all genuine Arminians, it 
is answered in the affirmative. 

I. Before we proceed directly to the discussion of the question here 
presented, we will notice several different views of the subject, taken by 
learned and eminent Calvinists, and show that they all perfectly harmo- 
nize when they come to the question above presented. 

The following will be found to contain the substance of the principal 
Calvinistic theories upon this subject, viz.: 

1. That the atonement of Christ is specially limited, in its nature, design, 
and benefits, to the elect portion of mankind, so that Christ died for them 
alone; that he represented them alone in the covenant of redemption, and 
that “neither are any other redeemed by Christ.” 


Ch. zix., THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 248 


And that consequently none but the elect have any possible chance 
of salvation. 

The foregoing is, no doubt, the strict Calvinistic view, as contained 
in the writings of Calvin himself, and set forth in the “ Westminster 
Confession of Faith,” which is at once the standard of the Church of 
Scotland and of the English and American Presbyterians. Yet it must 
be admitted that even the abettors of this system acknowledge that all 
men, by virtue of the atonement of Christ, are favored with temporal 
mercies, and what they term a “common call” of the gospel, which, 
nowever, they contend, cannot possibly lead to, nor are they designed to 
result in, their eternal salvation. 

2. A second scheme is, that the atonement of Christ possessed sufficient 
value in its nature to satisfy fully for all the sins of the whole world; but 
that it was not designed, nor can it possibly be extended in its application, 
so as to make salvation possible to any but the elect. 

It will be readily perceived that this scheme is not essentially variant 
from the first. Indeed, it has been advocated by a goodly number of 
the most eminent divines of the strictly Calvinistic Churches. The 
only point in which it might seem to differ from the first is, that it 
allows a sufficiency in the nature of the atonement to avail for the sal- 
vation of all; but that sufficiency in nature is completely neutralized 
by the declaration that, according to the intent and purpose of God, the 
application cannot possibly be made to any but the elect. This system 
is what has sometimes been termed general redemption, with a particular 
application. But to call this a scheme of general redemption is a pal- 
pable abuse of language; for if, according to the design and decree of 
God, it is absulutely impossible for any but the elect to obtain the ben- 
efits of the atonement, redemption, so far as the rest of mankind are 
concerned, is only in name, and amounts to a perfect nullity; so that 
there is no real difference between this and the first system. 

3. A third system is, that the atonement wae not only sufficient, but was 
also designed for the salvation of all mankind; and that the gospel should 
therefore be preached with sincerity alike to all; but that none but the 
elect can ever possibly be saved by it, because none others will believe 
and obey it; and that this is certain, because none can possibly believe 
unless God, by the invincible influence of his Spirit, give them faith, and 
this he has decreed from all eternity to withhold from all but the elect. 

The substance of this system is this:—Christ has purchased a con- 
ditional salvation for all men. Faith is this condition; but, according 
to the decree and arrangement of God, this faith cannot possibly be 
obtained by any but the elect. 


244 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Poe B.S: 


Tne above is substantially the scheme advocated by the pious Baxter, 
which he adopted from Camero, and introduced with the avowed pur: 
pose of steering a medium course between rigid Calvinism and Armin- 
ianism. It is, likewise, little different from the views advocated by Dr. 
Samuel Hopkins, and many other divines, of the last and the present 
century, both in Europe and America. 

Calvinists of this class appear, to persons not well versed in the tech- 
nicalities of their system, to exhibit the gospel call with as much unre 
served fullness and freeness to all mankind as Arminians possibly can 
do. They offer salvation to all, urge all to repent and believe, and 
assure all that they have a sufficiency of grace to enable them to repent 
and believe, and that if they are not saved they will be condemned for 
their unbelief, and it will be their own fault. When their discourses 
are richly interlarded with such expressions as the above, it is not sur- 
prising that many should be unable to distinguish their doctrine from 
genuine Arminianism; but although they, no doubt, think they can, 
consistently with their creed, express themselves as they do, and should 
therefore be exonerated from any intention to mislead, yet it is most 
evident that, when we allow their own explanation to be placed upon 
their language, so far from harmonizing in sentiment with genuine 
Arminians, they differ in nothing essentially from ae Calvinists of the 
Old School. 

That we may understand correctly what they mean when they use 
such language as we have above quoted, it will be necessary for us to 
attend strictly to their own interpretation of the terms. 

(1) Then, when they offer salvation indiscriminately to all, they some- 
times tell us that they are justified in doing so, because the elect, whe 
only have the power, in the proper sense, and who only are really 
intended to embrace it, are so mixed up among the general mags of all 
nations to whom the gospel is sent, that none but God can determine 
who they are; therefore the gospel call is general, and should be indis- 
criminately presented, that all for whose salvation it was really designed 
may embrace it, and that others may have the opportunity of willfully 
rejecting it, which they will most certainly do, because God has deter- 
mined to withhold from them that faith without which the gospel can- 
not be properly received. 

(2) When they urge all to repent and believe, they endeavor to jus 
tify themselves by alleging, that although man has lost the power to 
obey, God has not lost the right to command; that it is still the duty 
of all men to repent and believe the gospel; that salvation is sincerely 
offered to all upon these conditions; and that, if they do not comply 


th. xix.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 245 


with the conditions, God is not to blame, for he is under obligations to 
confer saving faith upon none. 

(3) When they say that all have a sufficiency of grace to enable 
them to repent and believe, and consequently to be saved, we must look 
narrowly at their own interpretation of the term sufficiency. When 
they use this word, and kindred terms, such as power, ability, etc., they 
do not attach to them their full import, according to their usual accep- 
tation in language, but by resorting to the subtleties of philological 
distinction, and applying to these terms several different meanings, they 
fix upon a certain sense in which they think they can be used in refer- 
suce to the salvation of all men. ‘This sense, although it may be dif- 
ferent from the generally received import of the terms, we may reason- 
ably suppose is always present with their minds when they use the terms 
as above specified. 

By the phrase “ sufficient grace,” as used by these divines, in reference 
to such as are not of the elect portion of mankind, we are not to under- 
stand invincible effectual grace, such as they affirm is given to the elect, 
but merely “sufficient ineffectual grace,” as Baxter himself termed it. 
What he understood thereby, is sufficiently evident from his own words, 
as follows: “I say it again, confidently, all men that perish, (who have 
the use of reason,) do perish directly for rejecting sufficient recovering 
grace. By grace, I mean mercy contrary to merit. By recovering, I 
mean such as ¢endeth in its own nature toward their recovery, and lead- 
eth, or helpeth, them thereto. By sufficient, I mean, not sufficient 
directly to save them, (for such none of the elect have till they are 
saved;) nor yet sufficient to give them faith, or cause them savingly to 
believe. But it is sufficient to bring them nearer Christ. than they are, 
though not to put them into immediate possession of Christ by union 
with him, as faith would do.” (Universal Redemption, p. 434.) 

These words of Baxter may be considered a just comment. on the 
language of all Calvinists, when they speak of a sufficiency of grace 
being given to all men. They meana sufficiency to do them some good, 
“to bring them nearer Christ,” and even a sufficiency to save them, if 
they would believe; but this they cannot do, because God withholds 
saving faith from them. It is difficult to understand the term “suffi- 
cient grace,” as used above, to signify any thing different from insuffi- 
event grace. So far as the question of salvation is concerned, which is the 
only point of any importance herein involved, the term sufficient is 
entirely explained away, so as to be made a perfect nullity. And thus 
this system is left, notwithstanding it professes to give a sufficiency of 
grace to all mankind, in no essential point different from rigid Calvinism. 


246 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. a. 


(4) Again: when Calvinists present the offer of salvation to all, and 
declare that God willeth not the damnation of any, in order to reconcile 
these terms, which seem to imply a real provision and possibility for the 
salvation of all, with the true principles of their creed, they resort to a 
distinction between what they term the revealed and secret will of God. 
{t is, say they, according to the revealed will of God that all men should 
repent and believe, and consequently be saved; but it is according to 
the secret will of God that none shall receive the grace to enable them 
to repent and believe, but the eloct; and consequently that salvation is, 
in the proper sense, possible to none others. 

As a farther illustration, and as an evidence that we have not here 
misinterpreted the true sentiments of Calvinists, we present the follow- 
ing quotation from a late Calvinistic author of great learning and emi- 
nence: 

“The Calvinists say that these counsels and commands, which are 
intended by God to produce their full effect only with regard to the 
elect, are addressed indifferently to all for this reason: because it was 
not revealed to the writers of the New Testament, nor is it now revealed 
to the ministers of the gospel, who the elect are. The Lord knoweth 
them that are his; but he hath not given this knowledge to any of the 
children of men. We are not warranted to infer from the former sins 
of any person that he shall not, at some future period, be conducted by 
the grace of God to repentance; and therefore we are not warranted 
to infer that the counsels and exhortations of the divine word, which 
are some of the instruments of the grace of God, shall finally prove vain 
with regard to any individual. But although it is in this way impos- 
sible for a discrimination to be made in the manner of publishing the 
gospel, and although many may receive the calls and commands of the 
gospel who are not in the end to be saved, the Calvinists do not admit 
that even with regard to them these calls and commands are wholly 
without effect. For they say that the publication of the gospel is 
attended with real benefit even to those who are not elected. It points 
out to them their duty; it restrains them from flagrant transgressions, 
which would be productive of much present inconvenience, and would 
aggravate their future condemnation; it has contributed to the diffusion 
and enlargement of moral and religious knowledge, to the refinement 
of manners, and to the general welfare of society. And it exhibits 
such a view of the condition of man, and or the grace from which the 
remedy proceeds, as magnifies both the righteousness and the compas- 
sion of the Supreme Ruler, and leaves without excuse those who con- 
tinue in sin. 


Ch. xix.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 247 


“The Calvinists say farther, that although these general uses of the 
publication of the gospel come very far short of that saving benefit 
which is confined to the elect, there is no want of meaning or of sin- 
cerity in the expostulations of Scripture, or in its reproaches and pathetic 
expressions of regret with regard to those who do not obey the counsels 
and commands that are addressed to all. For these counsels and coms 
mands declare what is the duty of all, what they feel they ought to 
perform, what is essential to their present and their future happiness, 
and what no physical necessity prevents them from doing. There is, 
indeed, a moral inability—a defect—in their will. But the very object 
of counsels am . commands is to remove this defect; and if such a defect 
rendered it improper for the Supreme Ruler to issue commands, every 
sin would carry with it its own excuse, and the creatures of God might 
always plead that they were absolved from the obligation of his law, 
because they were indisposed to obey it. It is admitted by the Calvin- 
ists that the moral inability in those who are not elected is of such a 
kind as will infallibly prevent their obeying the commands of God ; and 
it is a part of their system that the Being who issues these commands 
has resolved to withhold from such persons the grace which alone is 
sufficient to remove that inability. In accounting for these commands, 
therefore, they are obliged to have recourse to a distinction between the 
secret and the revealed will of God. They understand by his revealed 
will that which is preceptive, which declares the duty of his creatures, 
containing commands agreeable to the sentiments of their minds and 
the constitution of their nature, and delivering promises which shall 
certainly be fulfilled to all who obey the commands. They understand 
by his secret will, his own purpose in distributing his favors and arrang- 
ing the condition of his creatures—a purpose which is founded upon 
the wisest reasons, and is infallibly carried into execution by his sover- 
eign power, but which, not being made known to his creatures, cannot 
possibly be the rule of their conduct.” (Hill’s Lectures.) 

There is, perhaps, only a shade of difference between the theory of 
Baxter and Hopkins, as above delineated, which has been held by a 
large portion of the Calvinistic Churches since their day, and the more 
modern phase of the subject called “New Divinity,” and advocated gen- 
erally hy New School Presbyterians, and the Congregationalists of New 
England. We must, however, reserve the examination of this subject 
for our next chapter. 


248 


ELEMENTS 


OF DIVINITY. 


(E.icBes 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIX. 


QveEstion 1. Has there been much diver- 


sity of sentiment in the Church 
relative to the extent of the atone- 
ment? 


. Into what two great parties have 


Christians .been divided on this 
subject ? 


. Why should caution and forbearance 


be exercised on this subject? 
Has this controversy always been 
conducted in a proper spirit? 
What is the view of Arians, Socin- 
ians, etc., in reference to the extent 
of the atonement? 


. What peculiar view is taken by a 


certain class of Universalists? 
Upon what false assumption is this 
scheme based? 


. Has the same view of the nature of 


atonement been adopted by any 
others? 


. Do the Scriptures present the atone- 


ment in the light of a commercial 
transaction? 


. In what light, then? 
Lae 


To admit this view of the nature of 
atonement, would the salvation of 
all for whom it was made neces- 
sarily follow? 


12. 


13. 
14. 


15. 


16. 


17. 


18. 


What, then, would be the contro 
versy between Calvinists and Uni- 
versalists ? 

How is this scheme refuted? 

In what great question is embraced 
the substance of the controversy 
between Calvinists and Armin- 
ians? 

What are the three different views 
taken by Calvinists on this sub- 
ject? 

Is there any essential difference in 
these schemes on the subject of the 
main question? 

What distinguished divines are men- 
tioned as having advocated the 
latter ? 

How have Calvinists endeavored to 
justify themselves in offering sal- 
vation to all? 


. Have they in this way successfully 


vindicated their consistency? 


. What does Mr. Baxter mean by the 


phrase “sufficient grace”? 


. What does Dr. Hil’ mean by morta 


inability, and by the reraled a a 
the secret will of foc 


Ch. zx, THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 249 


CHAPTER XxX. 


THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT—MORE MODERN PHASES OF CALVIN: 
ISM EXAMINED. 


In the controversy which, for a century past, has been conducted with 
80 much zeal between Calvinism and Arminianism, it cannot be denied 
that the advocates of Calvinism have greatly changed their form of 
presenting, and their method of defending, that system. The phase of 
Calvinism, as generally set. forth in this country at the present day, is 
materially modified from what it was half a century ago. An exem- 
plification of this fact is, perhaps, nowhere more clearly witnessed than 
in connection with the New School Presbyterians. Indeed, it was the 
introduction of a new method of setting forth the Calvinistic doctrines 
which mainly contributed to the division of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States into the New and the Old School branches. 

In our preceding chapter, we think we have clearly shown that Cal- 
vinism, in all its different phases, and in all its various costumes, in the 
same Churches at different times, and in different Churches at all times, 
has ever been, and still continues to be, essentially the same: the 
changes having been merely modal, its identity essential. We have, 
however, deemed it proper to devote a brief chapter to the considera- 
tion of that system, as presented generally in the present day, and 
especially by the New School Presbyterians, and the New England 
Congregationalists. 

I. We will first explain this “new divinity,” as it pertains to the essen- 
tial feature in question. 

We choose to do this by a few citations from some reputable authors. 

The Rev. Albert Barnes, an accredited exponent of the doctrine 
in question, in his sermon entiled “The Way of Salvation,” expresses 
himself thus: “This atonement was for all men. It was an offering 
made for the race. It had not respect so much to individuals, as to the 
law and perfections of God. It was an opening of the way for pardon 
—a making forgiveness consistent—a preserving of truth—a magnify- 
ing of the law; and had no particular reference to any class of men 
We judge that he died for all. He tasted death for every man. He 


250 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (PiB3 


is the propitiation for the sins of the world. He came, that whosoever 
would believe on him should not perish, but have eternal life. The 
full venefit of this atonement is offered to all men. In perfect sincerity 
God makes the offer. He has commissioned his servants to go and 
preach the gospel—that is, the good news that salvation is provided for 
them—to every creature. He that does not this—that goes to offer 
the guspel to a part only, to elect persons only, or that supposes that 
Gcd offers the gospel only to a portion of mankind—violates his com- 
mission, practically charges God with insincerity, makes himself ‘ wise 
above what is written,’ and brings great reproach on the holy cause of 
redemption. The offer of salvation is not made by man, but by God. 
lt is his commission; and it is his solemn charge that the sincere offer 
of heaven should be made to every creature. I stand as the messenger 
of God, with the assurance that all that will may be saved; that the 
at.nement was full and free; and that, if any perish, it will be because 
th: y choose to die, and not because they are straitened in God. I have 
no fellow-fveling for any other gospel: I have no right-hand of fellow- 
ship to extend to any scheme that does not say that God sincerely offers 
all the bliss of heaven to every guilty, wandering child of Adam.” 

rom this extract, who would suppose that its author was not an 
Ariiinian of the boldest type? Here is exhibited a general, a wniver- 
sal, atonement for every child of Adam—a provision, rich, full, and 
free, to be sincerely tendered to all mankind. Is not this real Wesleyan 
Arminianism? Such, truly, it seems! But, strange to think! the 
author is still a Calvinist. Subscribing to the “ Westminster Confession 
of Faith,” he still holds to predestination, the eternal decrees, fore- 
ordination, effectual calling, in the strict, unconditional sense. When 
he exclaimed, “I stand as the messenger of God, with the assurance 
that all that wild may be saved,” he inserted the little emphatic word 
“will,” which still enables him to moor his bark in the Calvinistic 
harbor. 

Ii is the theory of Mr. Barnes, and of the New School Calvinists 
generally, that Christ died for all; that the atonement is ample for all; 
that God invites all; that God wills that add should come to Christ and 
te saved. They proclaim these Bible truths with impassioned earnest- 
ness, so that one could hardly suppose it possible that they did not 
believe that God had provided a possible salvation alike for all men, 
But yet, their theory admits no such thing. They hold that while the 
atonement is ample to save all, if they would but accept it, that yet, 
such is the native depravity of the human heart, that no man will, or 
oan, accept of the salvation offered, unless God first, by invincible soy- 


Oh. xx | THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 251 


ereign grace, imparts the will to repent, believe, and obey the gospel ; and 
they farther hold, as strictly as do Calvinists of the Old School, that 
God has determined from all eternity to impart this sovereign convert- 
ing grace only to the elect of God embraced in the covenant of redemp- 
tion. They farther admit that these elect of God, until God visits them 
with his invincible converting grace, are quite as wicked, and as averse 
to the exercise of true repentance and faith, as the rest of mankind 
vhom God sees fit to “ pass by,” and leave to perish for their sins. 

Yet they still contend strenuously, that if men perish, it is altogether 
their own fault; and that God in perfect sincerity makes the offer of 
salvation to all men alike. But how do they reconcile all this with the 
doctrine of the “Confession of Faith” to which they all subscribe? 
This is the point now to be examined. 

Calvinists of this class play upon the word will, telling us that all the 
inability of the reprobate sinner to come to Christ results from his own 
perverse will; that he might be saved if he would, but as he freely wills 
to reject Christ, he is justly accountable for his unbelief and sin, though 
they can show us no way, according to their theory, by which this unbe- 
lief and sin, for which they are held responsible, may be removed, or 
overcome. When they speak of the ability of all men to believe and 
be saved, they understand by the term ability something far short of the 
full import of that word as commonly used. They resort to the subtlety 
of philosophy, and make a distinction between natural and moral abil- 
ity. By the former, they mean the physical powers necessary to the 
performance of any specific act; by the latter, they mean the mental 
state, or condition of the will or heart, necessary to the performance of the 
act in question. Hence, when they say that all men may believe and 
be saved, they only mean that they have the natural powers necessary 
to saving faith; but that those natural powers must necessarily be una- 
vailing in all except the elect, because they cannot be exerted without 
the moral ability, which none can possess unless God see proper, by his 
invincible sovereign grace, to confer it. But as he has decreed from all 
eternity to withhold this grace from all except the elect, it is certain, 
according to this theory, that none others will, or can, be saved. 

To show that we do not misstate their views in reference to naturel 
and moral ability, we make a few quotations from their own writers. 

Dr. John Smalley says: “Moral inability consists only in the want 
of heart, or disposition, or will, to do a thing. Natural inability, on the 
other hand, consists in, or arises from, want of understanding, bodily 
strength, opportunity, or whatever may prevent our doing a thing when 
we are willing, and strongly enough disposed or inclined, to do it.” 


252 ELEMENYTS OF DIVINITY. i: B.3 


Andie. Puller says: “We suppose that the propensities of mankind 
to evil are so strong as to become invincible to every thing but omnip- 
otent grace... . It is natwral power, and that only, that is properly so 
called, and which is necessary to render men accountable beings.” 

ln the Princeton Review, (April, 1854, page 246,) moral inability is 
defined as “a rooted propensity to evil, and aversion to good; a moral 
bias, which man has not the requisite power to remove.” 

Mr. Barnes, in the sermon from which we have quoted, in speaking 
wf natural ability, says: “It is not to any want of physical strength that 
this rejection is owing, for men have power enough in themselves to 
hate both God and their fellow-men: it requires less physical power to 
love God than to hate him.” Here the position assumed by Mr. Barnes 
is, that because men have the requisite “‘ physical power” to “love God,” 
therefore they are responsible for rejecting Christ; although, according 
to his own theory, they are by nature involved in a moral inability which 
must forever neutralize that “physical power.” We might multiply 
quotations from Calvinistie writers, both Old and New School, on this 
point, but we have said enough to evince clearly what they mean by 
their distinction between natural and moral ability, and that they ground 
human responsibility solely on natural ability. 

We, however, with special reference to New School divinity, present 
a few additional remarks. 

The following propositions, which we quote from the Bibliotheca 
Sacra, were subscribed to by a number of the New School divines, for 
the express purpose of demonstrating that their theory of Calvinism 
was consistent with the “Confession of Faith.” 

J. “ While sinners have all the faculties necessary to a perfect moral 
agency and a just accountability, such is their love of sin and opposi- 
tion to God and his law, that, independently of the renewing influence or 
almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, they never will comply with the com- 
mands of God.” (April No., 1863, page 585.) 

2. “While repentance for sin and faith in Christ are indispensable to 
salvation, all who are saved are indebted from first to last to the grace and 
Spirit of God. And the reason that God does not save all, is not that he 
lacks the power to do it, but that in his wisdom he does not see fit to exert 
that power farther than he actually does.” (July No., 1863, page 585.) 

3 “While the liberty of the will is not impaired, nor the established 
connection between means and end broken by any action of God on the 
mind, he can influence it according to his pleasure, and does effectually 
determine it to good in all cases of true conversion.” (July No., 1863, 
page 586.) 


Th. xx.) THe ATONEMENT—I'TS EXTENT. 25d 


4. “While all such as reject the gospel of Christ, do it not by coer 
cion, but freely, and all who embrace it, do it not by coercion, but freely, 
che reason why some differ from others is, that God has made them to differ.” 
(July No., 1863, page 586.) 

It is not to our purpose to inquire into all the shades of difference in 
opinion between New and Old School Calvinists. We have numbered 
the foregoing propositions, and have italicized parts of them, for ous 
own convenience in commenting upon them. In general terms, we 
remark that they are so ingeniously framed, that while the superficial 
examiner might construe them as favoring Arminianism, yet, upon 
closer scrutiny, it may be clearly seen that they are so worded as te 
admit of being dove-tailed into old-fashioned Calvinism, as homogene- 
ous to the same system. 

In No. 1, the “almighty energy of the Holy Spirit” is referred to, 
without which the sinner “never will comply with the commands of God.” 
This means, in Old School dialect, the “effectual call”—the “secret, 
invincible, regenerating grace”—without which none can will to come to 
Christ. None without this grace can be saved; consequently the salva- 
tion of those from whom this grace is withheld, is beyond the range of 
possibility. 

In No. 2, the Calvinistic dogma that the sinner can do nothing toward 
his salvation, but that he is as passive and helpless in the case as the 
clay in the hand of the potter, is fully implied in the terms, “are 
indebted from first to last to the grace and Spirit of God”—that is, 
repentance and faith on the part of the sinner have nothing to do with 
his salvation, whether as conditions or otherwise. And more plainly 
still, we are here taught that the reason why all are not saved is this: 
God “in his wisdom does not see fit to exert that (his saving) power 
any farther in that way”—that is, the reason of their not being saved 
is altogether with God; it results solely from his sovereign will. 

In No. 3, the “invincible sovereign grace which God sees fit to bestow 
upon the elect, but to withhold from all others,” is clearly secured. God 
can “influence” the will “according to his pleasure, and does effectually 
determine it to good :” this is only the “invincible grace” of “ effectual 
calling,” with the phraseology slightly modified. The language is 
changed—the sense is identical with Old Calvinism. 

In No. 4, the entire question of salvation or damnation is removed 
from the door of the sinner, and devolved solely upon God. If men 
“differ” in moral or religious character, it is because “God has made 
them to differ.” The sinner is not the custodian of his own moral char- 
acter. If one is good, and another bad—if one is a believer, and the 


Zok ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 8, 


other an iufidel—we are taught that “the reason why is, that God has 
made them to differ.” 

It is plain, from the quotations given, that the New School as well as 
the Old hold that none ever will, or, in the proper sense of the word, 
can, be saved, except God, by the exertion of his power, in a manner 
in which he does not see fit to exert it upon others, makes them willing to 
repent and believe, thus making them to differ from others. Hence, accord: 
ing to this theory, as God has determined not to exert this power on 
any but the “elect,” and as none can be saved without it, it follows that 
salvation is not made possible for all men. - 

II. We now proceed to show that their whole theory, with their distinctions 
about natural and moral ability and inability, is erroneous—inconsistent 
with the philosophy of lancuage, and the nature of things. 

The terms, natural and moral ability, have evidently been coined and 
pressed into this discussion by Calvinists to answer a purpose. They 
are used in a variety of acceptations—some proper, and some improper. 
Often they are ambiguous—convenient handmaids of sophistry, serving 
to obscure the truth, or to make error pass for truth. They are, as used 
in theology, an outbirth of Augustinian predestination—a material out 
of which has been woven a fabric to cover up some of the most rugged 
and distasteful features of Calvinism. 

Allowed to occupy their proper place, natural and moral are adjectives 
of very plain import. Natural, says Webster, means “pertaining to 
nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, for- 
mation, or motion, impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.” 
Moral, says Webster, “denotes something which respects the conduct of 
meu—something which respects the intellectual powers of man, as dis- 
tinct from his physical powers.” Webster defines ability to mean 
“power,” whether physical, intellectual, or of whatever kind. 

Hence it is easy to understand these terms in their proper literal im- 
port. To have ability for any thing, is to possess all the power requisite 
for it. Ability to do any thing, implies all the power necessary to 
the performance of the act. If several powers are necessary to the 
performance of a specific act—if it can only be performed by the pos- 
session of all those powers—we cannot have ability for it while we lack 
any one of those powers. 

The distinction made by Calvinistic divines between natural and 
moral ability, is not only at war with the philosophy of language, but 
with the nature of things. Agreeably to Webster, or any good lexi- 
cographer, the moral powers (so called) are as natural as the physical. 
Is uot the intellect, the will, or the moral sense, as natural-—as much an 


Ch. xx.] THE ATONEMENT— ITS EXTENT. 255 


element of our constitution—as our physical powers? Are not the 
moral powers really only one phase or species of the natural? In a 
word, is not the moral ability of these divines as much atural as their 
natural ability? And if so, is not the dividing of ability into natural 
and moral, manifestly inaccurate? 

“The will,” says Dr. Whedon, (see Whedon on the “ Freedom of the 
Will,”) “is as natural a power as the intellect or the corporeal strength 
The volitions are as truly natural as any bodily act. The will is a 
natural part of the human soul. The ability or inability of the will is 
a natural ability or inability. There is no faculty more natural than 
the will, or that stands above it, or antithetical to it, as more eminently 
natural. On the other hand, to make moral volitional is absurd; for 
many acts of the will belong uot to the sphere of morals. They are 
not moral or ethical acts, and therefore they exert no moral ability; 
and so, again, the power to will is not a moral, but a natural, ability.” 

The same author continues: “This misuse of terms infringes upon 
and tends to supplant their legitimate application to their proper sig- 
nificates. There is a proper natural ability, moral ability, and gracious 
ability, to which these terms should be exclusively applied. 

“Natural ability, or abilities, include all the abilities or powers with 
which a man is born, or into which he grows. Natural is hereby often 
antithetical to acquired. The term ability includes capabilities of body 
or mind; of mind, including intellect, will, or moral sense. 

“Moral ability, being a species under natural ability, is every power of 
the body or mind viewed as capable of being exerted for a moral or 
immoral purpose. 

“Gracious ability is an ability, whether of body or soul, conferred by 
divine goodness over and above the abilities possessed by man by nature 
—that is, as a born and growing creature.” 

The purpose for which the Calvinistic thesis respecting natural and 
moral ability wes invented, was to find a plausible ground of human 
responsibility, consistently with the tenets of Calvinism. In addition 
to the abuse of terms which, as we have shown, the scheme involves, we 
now proceed to show that— 

TIT. The scheme itself is not only absurd and self-contradictory, but that 
it fails to furnish any rational ground of human responsibility; and, con- 
sequently, does not essentially differ from the doctrine of the Old School, on 
the main question between them and Arminians. 

1. The gist of the whole thesis about natural and moral ability with 
these divines, whether they rank as New or Old School, is, that they 
assume that man has natural ability to embrace salvation, and that this 


256 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY fPyieBSS. 


alone furnishes ample ground of responsibility. The fallacy lies in 
this: they assume that because a man possesses a kind of ability, there- 
fore he is responsible for not performing a certain duty, which can only 
be performed by the exercise of another kind of ability which he does 
not possess—that is, because we have a natural ability, we are responsible 
for not doing what it is impossible for us to do without a moral ability. 

Now, we demand, is it not clear that if responsibility connects with 
power to do what is required at all, it must be an adequate power? Mr. 
Barnes endeavors to show that, because a man has “ physical strength,” 
he is responsible for not receiving Christ into his heart. The power to 
perform any given act amounts to nothing, unless it can avail in refer- 
ence to that act. Unless it can do this, it is no power at all in the case. 
Because a child has power to read a verse in his English Testament, 
will you chastise him for not reading it in the Greek, of which he is 
perfectly ignorant? No man can receive salvation by the exercise cf 
mere natural ability, any more than he can create a world. How, then, 
can he be justly responsible for not accepting salvation, merely because 
of his natural abiliiy? Must the sinner be “ punished with everlasting 
destruction from the presence of the Lord” for not obeying the gospel, 
merely because he had natural ability, though he had not moral ability, 
without which he could no more obey the gospel than he could stop the 
course of nature? 

2. But again, this scheme is as self-contradictory as it is absurd. 
Ability to do any particular thing, means all the power essential to the 
performance of that thing. Hence, if I have a natural ability to 
accept salvation, I must also have moral ability. If natural ability 
does not include all the ability essential to the act in question, it is no 
adility; for ability for any thing includes all the power essential to its 
performance. 

In the nature of things, I can have no natural ability to do any thing, 
unless I first have the moral ability. Moral ability implies the wid— 
the state or disposition of the heart. Now, how can I get up and walk, 
unless I am willing to do so? I must first have the will before I can 
perform any act of duty whatever—that is, I must first have the moral 
before I can have the natural ability for it. If I lack the moral ability 
to come to Christ for salvation, I can have no ability whatever for that 
duty. Natwral ability in the case is an absurdity. I can have no nat- 
ural ability in opposition to, or in the absence of, moral ability. Hence, 
to found human responsibility upon natural, in the absence of moral, 
ability, is to found it upon a nullity—upon no ability—upon an impossi- 
bility. 


Ch. xx.] THE ATONEMENT—I1TS EXTENT. 257 


Dr. Whedon pertinently remarks: “Where there is no moral ability, 
there can be no natural ability. Where there is no power to will, there 
is no power to execute the behest of the will. That behest cannot be 
obeyed if ic cannot exist. If there be no adequate power for the given 
volition, there is no volition to obey, and so no power to obey. An 
impossible volition cannot be fulfilled. If a man through counter 
motive force has no power to will otherwise than sin, he has no sequent 
power to do otherwise than sin. If a man has not the power to will 
right, he has not the power to act right. An agent can perform a bod- 
ily act only through his will. And as it is a universal law that no 
agent can do what he cannot will, so it is a universal truth, that where 
there is no power of will, there is no bodily power to fulfill the volition 
which cannot exist. What a man cannot will, that he cannot do—that 
is, where there is no moral ability, there can be no natural ability. 
Hence it is helplessly absurd to propose ‘natural ability,’ in the absence 
of ‘moral ability,’ as a ground of responsibility.” 

3. But again, there is another kind of ability of vastly more conse- 
quence than either natural or moral ability. We mean gracious ability. 
To speak of responsibility in reference to salvation being founded on 
natural or moral ability, or both of them together, is to ignore the 
express teachings of the Saviour, who says: “This is the condemnation, 
that light is come into the world, and men love darkness rather than 
light.” Responsibility, it is true, depends to some extent on all these 
powers—physical, intellectual, and volitional—so far as they can aid 
us in the service of God; but all these powers together cannot make up 
that ability, out of the use or abuse of which our responsibility mainly 
arises. The salvation or destruction of the soul turns solely upon the 
use or abuse of that gracious ability which God, through the atonement 
of Christ and the influence of the Holy Spirit, imparts to every sinner. 
Here is the ground of that responsibility which all must meet in the 
final judgment. If there condemned, it will be because we rejected 
offered mercy, refusing to use the gracious ability furnished us by the 
gospel. If saved, it will be because we accepted that gracious ability 
so freely provided. In connection with the eternal destiny of the soul, 
all other ability, if it includes not this, is light as a feather. No other 
ability—call it natural, moral, or by what name we please—can enable 
us to believe and be saved, or to reject Christ and perish. 

4. But we now inquire, Does this New School theory harmonize with 
that of the Old School, in reference to the great essential question between 
Calsinists and Arminians? Or does it poise itself upon the Arminian 
platform, and teach a possible salvation for all men? We think it only 

17 


258 FLEMENTS OF DIVINITY... [P. i. B.8 


necessary to scrutinize this theory closely, to perceive that it escapes 
none of those serious objections which have been urged against 
rigid Calvinism. It is liable to all those absurd and revolting con- 
sequences. 

(1) In reference to the eternal destiny of the soul, it devolves the respon 
sibility, not upon the sinner, but upon God. 

The doctrine set forth by the theory teaches, that while the atone 
ment is ample for all, intended for all, and the gospel should be preached 
alike to all, and the invitation to repent, believe, and be saved, should 
be sincerely addressed to all, that yet, such is the native depravity and 
moral inability of all sinners, that no one of the race will ever repent 
and believe, if left to himself, and to the common influences of the gos- 
pel and the Spirit. It farther teaches that God, looking upon all men 
as alike utterly sinful and helpless, sees proper to extend to a part (the 
elect) a secret invincible influence, making them willing and able 
(imparting the indispensable moral ability) to accept of salvation; and 
that the impartation of this influence absolutely secures the salvation 
of all to whom it is given; and that if this influence were in the same 
way extended to all, all would be saved. 

Now, we demand, of what avail can it be to the sinner to be told that 
Christ died to save him; that atoning mercy, ample, rich, and free, is 
provided for him, and that he may come to Christ and be saved, if he 
will, when he is assured that he is possessed of an inherited nature so 
corrupt and obdurate that none possessed of that nature ever did, 
or ever will, come to Christ, till God sees proper to impart the secret 
invincible influence of his Spirit, and thereby regenerate that nature? 
If the nature of all men is alike depraved, and if God imparts to a 
portion, who are no better than the rest, this influence, which, if im- 
parted alike to all, would save all, but withholds it from others, then 
are not “the ways of God” unequal? Is not God a “respecter of per- 
sons ” ? 

If it is certain that the sinner never will, nor can, be saved without 
this secret influence, which God of his own sove:eign pleasure with 
holds, then where rests the responsibility? Whose fault, whose doing 
is it that the sinner is not saved? He inherits this moral inability 
which is certain, while it remains, to keep him from Christ. Can he 
be responsible for the nature with which he was born? Or how ca, he 
change this nature? He has natural ability, it is allowed. Buti, fis 
adequate to the work? Can the native powers of this fallen bou~ and 
depraved soul overcome this moral inability—this perversenesy of will 
--which cleaves to the native moral constitution, like “the s) in to the 


Ch. xrx.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT, 259 


Ethiopian, or the spots to the leopard”? And while this moral inability 
remains, the sinner can no more come to Christ than he can dethrone 
Omnipotence, If this moral inability can only be overcome in the 
heart of the sinner by a secret invincible influence (the effectual call) 
which God has determined to withhold, then may the preacher as 
well waste his sermons and his exhortations upon the insensate rocks 
as upon him! It affords no palliation to tell him he may come to 
Christ if he will, The question is, How can he get the will? Can he 
change that corrupt nature, one of whose essential attributes excludes 
that will? 

{f we admit that God imparts to the sinner a gracious ability by 
which this corrupt nature may be restrained, and this moral inability 
so counteracted as to enable the sinner to come to Christ—if we take 
this position, then the difficulty all vanishes. But by so doing, we step 
fairly upon the Arminian ground, and the last plank of the Calvinistic 
platform has been deserted. Here is the dividing line between these 
two renowned systems of theology. If God has provided a gracious 
ability for every sinner, by which this soul-destroying moral imability 
may be counteracted, and the sinner saved, then is Arminianism true: 
the responsibility is thrown upon the sinner, and “the ways of God are 
justified to men.” But if we reject this position, then do we hitch 
on to the system of Calvinism; and we must embrace it in all its 
essential features, however rugged and revolting they may appear, or 
involve ourselves at every step in palpable inconsistency and self-con- 
tradiction. 

(2) Again: if, as the theory teaches, God gives to a part the moral 
ability to come to Christ, and withholds it from the rest, when all are 
alike depraved and helpless, does not this prove that God primarily 
wills the destruction of those that are lost—preferring their destruction 
to their salvation? All must admit that God could, were he so dis- 
posed, just as easily impart this secret invincible grace to all as to a 
part. It will be admitted also, that if God would but impart this grace 
alike to all, then all would infallibly be saved. Now we ask, according 
to this theory, Why is not the sinner saved? The answer must be, 
because God primarily wills that he should be lost. He wills to with- 
hold that grace, without which he cannot be saved, and with which he 
infallibly would be saved; consequently he wills that the sinner should 
be lost. And thus it is clear that this theory destroys the proper 
ground of human responsibility, taking it from the sinner, and throw- 
ing it back on the primary will of God. Hence, by clear logical 
sequence, this theory is liable to all the objectionable features of rigid 


260 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.3 


Calvinism. It denies that the atonement provides a possible salvation 
for all men. ? 

(3) If the ground be taken, as has been done by some claiming to be 
Calvinists, that the sinner may, by the exercise of his mere native 
powers, change his “ purpose,” or his “ preference,” and thus, on he prin- 
ciple of self-conversion, come to Christ, repent, believe, and be saved, 
independent of this secret invincible grace—(the effectual call)—-if any 
choose to occupy this position, then they are neither Calvinists nor 
Arminians, but have rushed to the extreme of Pelagianism. For the 
refutation of their theory, we refer to the appropriate department in 
this work. 

We think it must now be clearly apparent that, however much Cal- 
vinists may vary on points of little or no importance, yet, when they 
come to the main question involved in their controversy with Armin- 
ians, they perfectly harmonize. 

It is only necessary for us particularly to inquire for the sense in 
which they use scholastic and technical terms, and we may readily see 
that, however diversified the course of illustration and reasoning which 
they pursue, they arrive at the same ultimate conclusion. Whether 
they speak of a universal or limited atonement; whether they present 
the offer of gospel grace in terms the most general and unlimited, or 
with marked restriction and reservation; whether they be supra- 
lapsarian or sublapsarian in their peculiar views of the covenant of 
redemption; whether they be ranked with Antinomians or moderate 
Calvinists; whether they be designated as Baxterians or Hopkinsians, 
as New or Old School; whether they dwell mostly on free agency and 
sufficient grace, or on divine sovereignty and philosophic necessity; or 
in whatever else they may differ, they arrive at the same ultimate con- 
clusion on the great question we have proposed, as containing the gist 
of the controversy between Calvinists and Arminians. They do not 
believe that the atonement of Christ so ertends to all men as to “uke sal 


vation possible for them. 


Ch. xx.} 


THE ATONKMENT—ITS 


EXTENT. 261 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XX. 


Question 1. Where do we witness the 
most striking development of the 
new phases of Calvinism? 

2. What is the purport of the quotation 
from Mr. Barnes? 

3. How do Calvinists attempt to recon- 
cile the universal offer of salvation 
with their theory? 

4 How do they explain natural and 
moral ability ? 

5. How may it be shown that their defi- 
nitions on the subject are errone- 
us ? 

8 What three kinds of ability are 
presented, and how is each de- 
fined’ 


7. In what may be summed up the gist 
of the Calvinistic theses on the 
subject ? 

8. With what kind of power is respon- 
sibility connected? 

9. How is the theory of Calvinists on 
the subject of ability shown to be 
absurd and self-contradictory ? 

10. Upon what kind of ability is human 
responsibility properly founded? 

11. Wherein do the New and the Old 
School theories harmonize? 

12. How is it shown that the New 
School theory escapes none of the 
most revolting consequences ot 
rigid Calvinism ? 


262 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.S 


CHAPTER XXI. 


THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT—THE ARMINIAN VIEW EXHIBITED 
AND PROVED BY SCRIPTURE. 


Havina, in the preceding chapters, presented the true attitude of 
Calvinists in regard to the main point at issue, and shown their essen- 
tial agreement, we proceed briefly to define the genuine Arminian 
ground with regard to the same leading question. Preparatory to this, 
however, we first present a brief account of that system of Christian 
doctrine denominated Arminianism. 

“Arminianism, strictly speaking, is that system of religious doctrine 
which was taught by Arminius, professor of divinity in the University 
of Leyden. If, therefore, we would learn precisely what Arminianism 
is, we must have recourse to those writings in which that divine him- 
self has stated and expounded his peculiar tenets. This, however, will 
by no means give us an accurate idea of that which, since his time, has 
been usually denominated Arminianism. On examination, it will be 
found that, in many important particulars, those who have called them- 
selves Arminians, or have been accounted such by others, differ as 
widely from the nominal head and founder of their sect, as he himself 
did from Calvin and other doctors of Geneva. 

“The tenets of the Arminians may be comprised in the following five 
articles, relating to predestination, universal redemption, the corruption 
of men, conversion, and perseverance, viz.: 

“1. That God from all eternity determined to bestow salvation on 
those whom he foresaw would persevere unto the end in their faith in 
Christ Jesus; and to inflict everlasting punishment on those who should 
continue in their unbelief, and resist unto the end his divine succors; so 
that election was conditional, and reprobation in like manner the result 
of foreseen infidelity and persevering wickedness. 

“2. That Jesus Christ, by his sufferings and death, made an atone- 
ment for the sins of all mankind in general, and of every individ tal in 
particular; that, however, none but those who believe in him can be 
partakers of the divine benefits, 

“3, That true faith cannot proceed from the exercise of our natural 


h. xxi.) THE ATONEMENT—IIS EXfENT. 268 


faculties and powers, nor from the force and operation of free will; 
since man, in consequence of his natural corruption, is incapable 
either of thinking or doing any good thing; and that therefore it is 
necessary, in order to his salvation, that he be regenerated and renewed 
by the operation of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God through 
Jesus Christ, 

“4, That this divine grace or energy of the Holy Ghost begins and 
“perfects every thing that can be called good in man, and consequently 
all good works are to be attributed to God alone; that, nevertheless, 
this grace is offered to all, and does not force men to act against their 
inclinations, but may be resisted and rendered ineffectual by the per- 
verse wills of impenitent sinners. 

“5. That God gives to the truly faithful, who are regenerated by his 
grace, the means of preserving themselves in this state; and though 
the first Arminians made some doubt with respect to the closing part 
of this article, their followers uniformly maintain that the regenerate 
may lose true justifying faith, forfeit their state of grace, and die in 
their sins.” (Watson’s Biblical and Theological Dictionary.) 

From the foregoing account of the general principles of Arminian- 
ism, we conclude, in reference to the great question which we have 
proposed, that all genuine Arminians agree— 

1. That, notwithstanding the atonement has been made, those o whom 
the gospel is addressed cannot be saved without faith in Christ 

2, That mankind, by the exercise of their own natural powers, are 
incapable of believing in Christ unto salvation, without the supernatu- 
ral influence of divine grace through the Holy Spirit. 

3. That the assisting grace of God is, through the atonement, so 
extended to every man as to enable him to partake of salvation. 

Thus it may be seen, that while the Arminians discard the merit of 
works, or the ability to save themselves, yet they all agree in believing 
that the atonement of Christ so extends to all men as to make salvation pos- 
sible for them. 

As we have now shown that all genuine Calvinists and Arminians 
are fairly at issue with regard to the extent of the atonement so as to 
make salvation possible to all men, and as the substance of the entire 
controversy between them is plainly involved in that single question, we 
are now prepared to appeal “to the law and to the testimony.” On a 
subject of so great importance, we can confidently rely on nothing 
short of “Thus saith the Lord.” And happy for the honest inquirer 
after truth, upor no subject is the holy volume more copious and 
explicit. 


264 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 3 


We trust that no unfairness has been exercised in the exhibit which 
we have made of the peculiar views of Calvinists and Arminians, and 
that we may now impartially examine the question. 

We proceed, then, to the discussion of the following question: Does 
the atonement of Christ so extend to all mankind as to make salvation pos- 
sible for them? Upon this question we endeavored to show that all 
genuine Calvinists assume the negative, and all genuine Arminians tle 
affirmative. 

That the affirmative is the real doctrine of Scripture, we shall now 
endeavor to prove. 

I, Our first argument on this subject is founded upon those passages 
of Scripture in which, in speaking of the death or the atonement of 
Christ, terms of universality are used, such as, “the world,” “the whole 
world,” “all men,” ete. 

This class of texts is so numerous, that we need only select a few of 
many. John i. 29: “ Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the 
sin of the world.” John iii. 16, 17: “For God so loved the world that 
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son intothe 
world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be 
paved.” John iy. 42: “This is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the 
world.” John vi. 51: “And the bread that I will give is my flesh, 
which I will give for the life of the world.” 2 Cor. v. 14: “For the 
love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus Judge, that if one died 
for all, then were all dead.” Heb. ii. 9: “That he by the grace of God 
should taste death for every man.” 1 John ii. 2: “And he is the pro- 
pitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world.” 1 Tim. iv. 10: “Who is the Saviour of all men, espe- 
cially of those that believe.” 2 Cor. v. 19: “God was in Christ, recon- 
ciling the world unto himself.’ 1 Tim. ii. 6: “Who gave himself a 
ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” 

It has already been shown, in the discussion of the nature of the 
atonement, what is implied in Christ’s dying “for us,” or “for the world.” 
With Calvinists, at least, there can be no evasion on this point; for 
none have more successfully than they, when contending against the 
Socinians, demonstrated that the phrase “to die for,” as used in appli- 
cation to the death of Christ, means to die instead of, as a vicarious and 
expiatory sacrifice. This point, then, being settled, which Calvinists will 
cheerfully admit, we may ask, How is it possible for language more 
clearly and forcibly to teach that Christ died for al/ men, so as to make 
salvation possible for them, than it is taught in the passages adduced? 


Ch. xxi. THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 265 


He is said to have died “for all,” “for the world,” “ for every man,” 
and, as if expressly to preclude all possibility for cavil, either in refer- 
ence to the nature or the extent of his atonement, he is said to have 
given himself a “ransom for all,” to be “ reconciling the world unto him- 
self,” and to be the “propitiation for the sins of the whole world.” 

The reply of the Calvinists to this argument is, that the terms “all 
men,” “the world,” etc., are sometimes used in Scripture in a limited 
sense. 

In reference to this, we may observe that it cannot be admitted as a 
principle in criticism, that because a term is sometimes used in an unu- 
sual sense, and one different from the most obvious and general meaning, 
therefore it must so be understood in other places, even when there is 
nothing in the context to justify or require that unusual sense. Al- 
though we may admit that the terms “world” and “all men” may 
sometimes be used in a restricted sense, the conclusion which the Cal- 
vinists would draw from this admission is a non sequitur—it does not 
follow that the terms are to be restricted in the passages above quoted. 
So far from the context requiring this restriction, which would be neces- 
sary to the validity of the Calvinistic plea in question, we may confi- 
dently affirm that the entire connection and scope of the passages forbid 
the possibility of the terms being restricted. 

When our Saviour says, “God so loved the world that he gave his 
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him,” etc., it is clear that 
the world for whom the Saviour was given cannot be restricted to the 
elect; for the restriction which immediately follows, and promises 
“eternal life,” not to the world, but to such of the world as should 
believe, is positive evidence that the world for whom the Saviour was 
given would not all be saved. 

When St. Paul says, “ We thus judge, that if one died for all, then 
were all dead,” he proves the universality of spiritual death, or, (as 
Macknight paraphrases the passage,) of “condemnation to death,” from 
the fact that Christ “died for all.” Now if Christ only died for the 
elect, the apostle’s argument could only prove that the elect were spir 
itually dead, or condemned to death, which would be a violent perver- 
sion of the sense of the passage. 

When the apostle calls Christ the “Saviour of all men, especially of 
those that believe,” believers are evidently specified as only a part of 
the “all men” of whom Christ is said to be “the Saviour.” When St. 
John declares that Christ is “the propitiation for our sins, and not for 
ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” believers are first 
specified, as identified with the apostle, by the phrase, “our sins;” and 


266 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 3 


hence when it is added, “not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
whole world,” it is evident that the term should be taken in the widest 
sense as embracing all mankind. 

The Scriptures are their own best interpreter; and, where it can be 
dune, one passage should be explained by another. If, therefore, it could 
be shown that the same writers have, in other places, used these general 
terms to designate the elect, or believers, as such, there would be more 
plausibility in the restricted construction of Cavinists; but this is so far 
from being the case, that the elect, or believers, as such, are constantly 
in the Scriptures contradistinguished from “ the world.” The terms of 
universality, in the passages quoted, are never in Scripture applied to 
the elect, or believers, as such. 

When St. John says that Christ is “the propitiation for the sins of 
the whole world,” the sense in which he uses the term may be learned 
from that other expression of his, where he saith, “the whole world lieth 
in wickedness.” When St. Paul says that Christ “tasted death for every 
man,” he uses the phrase “every man” in as wide a sense as when he 
informs us that “every man” is to be raised from the dead “in his own 
order.” . 

When the Saviour informs us that he came “not to condemn the 
world, but that the world through him might be saved,” he refers to the 
same world of which he speaks when he says to his disciples, “If ye 
were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not 
of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world 
hateth you.’ We may therefore arrive at the conclusion, from those 
passages of Scripture in which, in speaking of the death of Christ, 
terms of universality are used, that the atonement of Christ so extends 
to all mankind as to make salvation possible for them. 

II. Our second argument is founded upon those passages which con 
trast the death of Christ with the fall of our first parents. 

1 Cor. xv. 22: “For as in Adam al/ die, even so in Christ shall all 
be made alive.” It is admitted that in this passage the resurrection of 
the body is the principal topic of discussion ; nevertheless, there is here 
a clear inferential proof that Christ died for all men,so as to make 
salvation attainable by them. For if, by virtue of his death and resur- 
rection, all men are to be redeemed from the grave, then it will follow 
that all men were represented by Christ in the covenant of redemption ; 
and if so, he must have died as an expiation for their sins; and how 
he could do this without intending to make salvation attainable by them, 
will be difficult to reconcile with reason and Scripture. 

Rom. v. 15, etc.: “ But uot as the offense, so also is the free gift. For 


Ch. xxi.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 262 


if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of 
God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath 
abounded unto many. Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment 
came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of 
one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.” Here 
the “free gift” is represented as transcending, or going beyond, the 
“offense,” which it could not do if it were only designed to make salvation 
possible to a part of those who fell by the “offense.” Again: as “all 
men” are here represented as being brought into condemnation by “the 
offense of one,” even so the “free gift” is said to come upon all men 
unto (el¢, in order to) justification of life.” This implies a possibility 
of salvation; and, from this passage, it is just as plain that all may be 
saved through Christ, as that all are condemned in Adam. 

III. Our third argument is founded upon those passages which leach 
that Christ died for such as do or may perish. 

2 Pet. ii. 1: “But there were false prophets also among the people, 
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring 
in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and 
bring upon themselves swift destruction.” 1 Cor. viii. 11: “And through 
thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died.” 
Rom. xiv. 15: “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” 
Other passages of this class might be adduced, but we think these are 
sufficient to show that some of those who have been bought by Christ, 
and for whom he died, do or may perish. Now, as they were bought 
by Christ, and as he died for them, according to what has already been 
shown, their salvation was once possible; and if the salvation of some 
who perish was possible, the reasonable inference is that the salvation 
of all mankind is made possible through the atonement of Christ. 

IV. Our fourth argument is founded upon those passages which author- 
ize the preaching of the gospel to all men, and require all men to repent 
and believe. 

Here we will first notice the grand commission of Christ to his apostles, 
Matt. xxviii. 19, 20: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing 
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world.” Mark xvi. 15, 16: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Again: to show 
farther that it is made the duty of all men to repent and believe, we 
refer to the followiyg passages:—John iii. 18, 36° “He that believeth 


268 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.S 


on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned 
already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten 
Son of God. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he 
that Lelieveth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth 
on him.” John xx. 31: “ But these are written, that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might 
have life through his name.” Acts xvi. 31: “Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Acts xvii. 30: “And the times 
of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every- 
where to repent.” ; 

We quote the above passages merely as a sample of the general tenor 
of the gospel proclamation and requirement. ‘That we may perceive the 
irresistible force of the proof from these texts that salvation is made 
attainable to all men, we observe— 

1. The gospel means good news. It is a message of peace and sal- 
vation. 

2. The commission to preach this gospel is given in terms of wniver- 
sality. The apostles are commanded to “go into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to every creature.” They are commanded to go and 
“teach all nations,” and to teach them “to observe all things whatso- 
ever” has been commanded. 

3. Repentance toward God, and faith in the gospel message and plan 
of salvation, are required of all to whom the gospel is preached. 

Nothing can be plainer than these positions, from the passages ad- 
duced. “AU men everywhere” are commanded “to repent.” The promise 
to him that believeth is, that he “shall be saved,” he “shall not be con- 
demned,” and he “shall have life” through the name of Christ. Now, 
upon the supposition that salvation is made attainable to all mankind, 
the propriety and consistency of all this are apparent; but upon the 
supposition that salvation is made attainable only to the elect portion 
of mankind, (according to the tenets of Calvinism,) we must deny every 
principle above stated as being proved by the Scriptures, or inevitably 
invelve ourselves in manifest inconsistency and absurdity. This may 
be clearly shown in the following manner: 

(1) The gospel is good news; or, as it is plainly expressed in Scrip- 
ture, it is “ glad tidings of great: joy to all people.” Now, if the gospel 
only proposes a possible salvation to the elect, it cannot be good news 
to those for whose salvation it contains no possible provision. If it be 
paid that it provides at least temporal mercies, and the common “ inef. 
fectual” calls and influences of the Spirit, for all men, we reply, that 
the admission of this, according to the Calvinistie scheme, so far from 


Uh. xxi.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 265 


rendering the condition of the non-elect more tolerable, or furnishing 
the least evidence that the gospel can be good news to them, only aggra- 
vates the misery of their condition, and furnishes an additional evidence 
that the gospel cannot be to them good news, or “ glad tidings of great 
joy.” 

If all the temporal blessings of life, as Calvinists do not deny, flow 
from the covenant of redemption, then it will follow that but for the 
atonement of Christ the blessing of personal existence itself never could 
have been enjoyed by any but the first sinning pair, and consequently 
none others could have been exposed to personal suffering; therefore, as 
it is clear that non-existence itself would be preferable to a state of 
inevitable, conscious, and eternal misery, so it is also evident that life, 
with its attendant mercies, according to Calvinism, is not a blessing, but 
a curse, to the non-elect; and if they derive this through the gospel, or 
atonement of Christ, that gospel itself must be to them a curse. 

Again: if, as Calvinism teaches, these temporal mercies, and the com: 
mon call and influence of the Spirit, cannot possibly be effectual with 
any but the elect, and the abuse of these mercies, and the rejection of 
this “common call” of the gospel and the Spirit, will tend to greater 
condemnation and misery, then it follows that, as the non-elect cannot 
possibly avoid this abuse and neglect, the mercies of life, and the calls 
and influences of the gospel and the Spirit tend inevitably to the aggra- 
vation of their misery, and must be to them a real curse. 

(2) The commission to preach this gospel is given in terms of univer. 
sality. 

Now if all men are required to believe, this is reasonable and con- 
sistent; but if this is the duty only of the elect, then the non-elect do 
right in refusing to believe, and, of course, cannot consistently be con- 
demned for their unbelief; which conclusion is flatly contradictory to 
the Scriptures. But if it be said that the non-elect are required te 
believe, although they cannot possibly do so unlesss God see proper to 
give them the moral ability, which he has from eternity determined to 
withhold, then it will follow that God, who is said not to be a “hard 
master,” requires more of his creatures than they can possibly perform, 
and condemns and punishes them eternally for not doing absolute 
impossibilities; which is alike repugnant to reason, justice, and Scrip- 
ture. 

(3) Repentance and faith are required of all men. 

If this be denied, the whole tenor of the gospel is flatly contradicted, 
and such as can be driven to so fearful a position we may justly appre- 
hend are beyond the reach of reason or Scripture. But if it be 


270 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PPiBe3 


admitted that all men are required to repent and believe, then we ask 
according to Calvinism, for what purpose is this requirement made? 
If the salvation of the non-elect is absolutely impossible, how could they 
be saved, even if we were to suppose them to believe? Could their 
faith effect that which God has decreed never shall be effected? Surely 
not. And how, we ask, can salvation be promised on the condition of . 
faith, and damnation be threatened as the consequence of unbelief, if 
neither the one nor the other depends in the least upon the agency of 
man? 

We are driven to the conclusion that, according to Calvinism, both 
salvation (the end) and faith (the means) are absolutely impossible to the 
non-elect; and that therefore we must either deny that the gospel com- 
mission addresses them, and makes it their duty to repent and _ believe, 
or admit that they are to be eternally punished, by a just and merciful 
Creator, for not attaining an impossible end by the use of impossible 
means. The latter alternative involves horrible absurdities; the former 
contradicts the Bible: for Calvinists there is no middle ground; and 
they may be left to choose their position for themselves. 

V. Our fifth argument is founded upon those passages which show that 
salvation is offered to all, and that men’s failure to obtain salvation is attri- 
butable to their own fault. 

Deut. xxx. 19: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against 
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing ; 
therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.” Isa. lv. 7: 
“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; 
and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; 
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Ezek. xxxiii. 11: 
“Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in 
the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn frem his way and 
live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O house 
of Israel?” Prov. i. 24, 25: “Because I have called, and ye refused ; 
I have stretched out my hand and no man regarded; but ye have set 
at naught all my counsel, and would none of my reproof.” 

In the New Testament, we read the following :—John v. 40: “And ye 
will not come to me, that ye might have life.” John iii. 19: “And this 
i the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved 
darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” Matt, xxiii. 
37: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest 
them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy 
children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, 
aud ye would not!” 2 Pet. iii. 9: “The Lord is not slack concern 


Ch, xxi] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 271 


ing his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering 
to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should 
come to repentance.” Rev. xxii, 17: “And the Spirit and the bride 
say, Come; and let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that is 
athirst come; and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” 

The passages of Scripture belonging to the present class are very 
numerous, but the above are so explicit that it is needless to multiply 
quotations. It only remains for us to inquire in what manner the effort 
is made by Calvinists to evade their force. As there are no texts of a 
like plain and explicit character to oppose to these, and show that Christ 
did not so die for all men as to authorize the offer of salvation to all, and 
to render the damnation of those that perish attributable to their own 
fault, the truth of this leading position is seldom denied by Calvinists 
of the present day. But the great difficulty is, to reconcile the princi- 
ples of Calvinism with the doctrine here so clearly established. Their 
general course has been, to descant upon the nature of general and 
effectual calling, the distinction between natural and moral ability, the 
invincibility of divine grace, etc., and then, as if conscious that they 
had failed in their attempt to reconcile their principles with this Bible 
truth, they have begged the question, and taking it for granted that 
the tenets of Calvinism (the very thing in dispute) are true, they 
have launched forth in a strain of pathetic admonition concerning the 
imbecility of human reason and the impiety of “man’s replying against 
God.” 

That such may clearly be seen to be the course taken by Calvinists 
on this subject, I will here present a quotation from one of their standard 
writers: 

“Several distinctions have been proposed, in order to throw some 
light on this dark subject. The external call, it has been said, is 
extended to the elect and the reprobate in a different manner. It is 
addressed to the elect primarily and directly, the ministry of the gospel 
having been instituted for their sake, to gather them into the Church, 
insomuch that, if none of them remained to be saved, it would cease, 
It respects the reprobate secondarily and indirectly, because they are 
mixed with the elect, who are known to God alone, and consequently it 
could not be addressed to them without the reprobate being included. 
This dispensation has been illustrated by rain, which, descending upon 
the earth, according to a general law, the final cause of which is tie 
fructification of the soil, falls upon places where it is of no use, as rocks 
and sandy deserts. Again: it has been said that the end of the external 
eall may be viewed in a twofold light, as it respects God, and as it 


272 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1.B 3 


respects the cail; and these may be distinguished as the end of the 
worker and the end of the work. The end of the work, or of the 
external call, is the salvation of men, because it is the natural tendency 
of the preaching of the gospel to lead them to faith and repentance. 
But this is not the end of the worker, or God, who does not intend to 
save all who are called, but those alone to whom he has decreed to give 
effectual grace. I shall not be surprised to find that these distinctions 
have not lessened the difficulty in your apprehension. While they 
promise to give a solution of it, they are neither more nor less than a 
repetition of it in different words. I shall subjoin only another obser- 
vation, which has been frequently made, that although God does not 
intend to save the reprobate, he is serious in calling them by the gospel ; 
for he declares to them what would be agreeable to him, namely, that 
they should repent and believe, and he promises, most sincerely, eternal 
life to all who shall comply. The call of the gospel does not show what 
he has proposed to do, but what he wills men to do. From his promises, 
his threatenings, and his invitations, it only appears that it would be 
agreeable to him that men should do their duty, because he necessarily 
approves of the obedience of his creatures, and that it is his design to 
save some of them; but the event demonstrates that he had no inten- 
tion to save them all; and this should not seem strange, as he was 
under no obligation todo so. Mr. Burke, in his treatise concerning the 
sublime and beautiful, has observed, when speaking of the attempt of 
Sir Isaac Newton to account for gravitation by the supposition of a 
subtle elastic ether, that ‘when we go but one step beyond the immedi- 
ately sensible qualities of things, we go out of our depth. All we do 
after is but a faint struggle that shows we are in an element which does 
not belong to us.’ We may pronounce, I think these attempts to ree- 
oncile the universal call of the gospel with the sincerity of God, to bea 
faint struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities of theology. 
They are far, indeed, from removing the difficulty. We believe, on the 
authority of Scripture, that God has decreed to give salvation to some, 
and to withhold it from others. We know, at the same time, that he 
offers salvation to all in the gospel; and to suppose that he is not sin- 
cere, would be to deny him to be God. It may be right to endeavor to 
reconcile these things, because knowledge is always desirable, and it is 
our duty to seek it as far as it can be attained. But if we find that 
beyond a certain limit we cannot go, let us be content to remain in igno 
rance. Let us reflect, however, that we are ignorant in the present case 
only of the connection between two truths, and not of the truths them- 
selves, fa~ these are clearly stated in the Scriptures. We ought there 


— 


Ch. xxi.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 273 


fore to helieve both, although we cannot reconcile them. Perhaps the 
subject is too high for the human intellect in its present state. It may 
be that, however correct our notions of the divine purposes seem, there 
is some misapprehension, which gives rise to the difficulty. In the 
study of theology, we are admonished at every step to be humble, and 
feel the necessity of faith, or an implicit dependence upon the testimony 
of Him who alone perfectly knows himself, and will not deceive us.” 
(Dick’s Theology, Lecture 65.) 

In reference to the foregoing, we may observe that Dr. Dick fully 
admits the universality of the calls and invitations of the gospel, but 
contends, at the same time, that God “intends to save those alone to 
whom he has decreed to give effectual grace.” To reconcile this with 
the sincerity of God, after repeating several of the commonly used Cal- 
vinistic solutions, he intimates is beyond the powers of man, and the 
attempt should be placed among “the faint struggles to extricate our- 
selves from the profundities of theology.” 

This, while it speaks well for the candor of the learned author, is a 
fair acknowledgment that human reason cannot reconcile the leading 
principle of Calvinism with the leading principle of the gospel. The 
leading principle of Calvinism, which distinguishes it from Arminian- 
ism, is, that salvation is not made possible to all men. The leading prin- 
ciple of the gospel is, that salvation is offered to all, and those who perish 
do so through their own fault. Now these two propositions, it is ad- 
mitted, are irreconcilable by human reason. If so, when it shall be 
clearly proved from the Bible that the gospel does not make salvation 
possible to all men, then the attempt to reconcile them may be styled 
“a faint struggle to extricate ourselves from the profundities of the- 
ology.” But as that proposition is the very point in dispute, which we 
contend never has been, and never can be, proved, this, we would say, 
is only “a faint struggle” by Calvinists “to extricate themselves,” 
not from “the profundities of theology,” but from the absurdities of 
Calvinism ! 

Either it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, or it is not. 
If we say it is not, we plainly contradict the Scriptures which we have 
quoted. If we say that it is, then it follows that it is possible for all 
men to believe, or it is the duty of some men to do what is absolutely 
impossible—which is absurd. But if we admit that it is possible for all 
men to believe, then it follows, either that those from whom God has 
decreed to withhold the moral ability to believe, may believe, or he has 
not so decreed in reference to any. To admit the former proposition 
implies a contradiction; to admit the latter, destroys Calvinism. 

18 


O74 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PimB Ss! 


Again, if we admit that all men may attain unto faith, tl en it follows 
that all men may attain unto salvation, or that some believers may per- 
ish. The latter is contradictory to Scripture; the former is contradic- 
tory to Calvinism. 

Farther: as we have shown from the Scriptures that those who fail 
to obtain salvation do so through their own fault, and not through any 
fault of God, then it follows either that some may be saved without 
faith, or that all who lack saving faith do so through their own fault; 
but if all who lack saving faith do so through their own fault, then 
their not believing cannot result solely from the decree of God to witb- 
hold from them the moral ability to believe; otherwise they are made 
answerable, and even punishable, for the divine decrees. To suppose 
that men are answerable and punishable for the divine decrees, is either 
to suppose that the decrees are wrong, which is impious, or to suppose 
that men are to be eternally punished for what is right, which is alike 
unscriptural and absurd. 

Calvinists sometimes, in order to evade the consequences resulting 
from their position, (that the reprobate are justly punishable for their 
unbelief, notwithstanding God has decreed to withhold from them that 
ability without which it is impossible for them to believe,) endeavor to 
elude the question, by asserting that the reprobate continue in unbelief 
willingly, and in rejecting the gospel act according to their own choice. 
But this, instead of removing the difficulty, only shifts it one step far- 
ther; for if, as the Calvinists say, they have no power to will, or to choose 
differently from what they do in this case, they can no more be punishable 
for their perverse will and wicked choice than if they were as destitute 
cf all mental and moral powers as a stock or a stone. To pursue this 
argument farther is needless. It is impossible, by any evasion or philo- 
sophical distinction, to avoid the conclusion that, according to those 
passages of Scripture which we have adduced to show that men’s failure 
to obtain salvation is attributable to their own fault, the atonement of 
Christ has made salvation attainable to all mankind. 

VI. Our next argument is founded upon those passages which teach 
the possibility of final apostasy from the faith. and warn Christiana 
against it. 

As the subject of apostasy will be particularly considered in its proper 
place, our remarks here shall be brief, and principally designed to show 
the necessary connection between those two great Bible doctrines—the 
possibility of final apostasy, and the possibility of salvation to all. These 
two doctrines mutually strengthen and support each other, insomuch 
that, if we admit the one, we cannot deny the other, without manifest 


Co. xxi} THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 275 


inconsistency. As the Calvinistic scheme denies any possibility of sal- 
vation to the reprobate, so it secures absolutely and infallibly the sal- 
vation of the elect. 

If, then, it can be shown that any have finally apostatized, or are in 
danger of finally apostatizing, from a state of gracious acceptance, or 
even from a hopeful state, in reference to eternal salvation, to a hopeless 
one, it will follow that, as some who perish were in a state of possible 
salvation, even to those termed reprobates by the Calvinists, salvation 
is attainable; and if this be proved, the possibility of salvation to all 
men will not be denied. 

As the Scriptures present instances of some who have fallen from a 
hopeful to a hopeless state, so they are full of warnings to the righteous, 
which show that they are not secure against the possibility of a similar 
apostasy. 2 Thess. ii. 10-12: “Because they received not the love of 
the truth that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send 
them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might 
be damned, who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous 
ness.” From this passage it is evident, 1. That these characters were 
once in a hopeful state; they “might” have been “saved;” conse- 
quently their state was superior to that of the Calvinistically reprobate. 
2. They fell from that state to a state of hopeless abandonment; they 
were judicially given over, and divinely visited with “strong delusion, 
that they should believe a lie, that they all might be damned;” conse- 
quently they could not have belonged to the Calvinistically elect. 

Heb. vi. 4-6: “For it is impossible for those who were once enlight- 
ened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers 
of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the 
powers of the world to come, if they shall fall away, (‘and yet have 
fallen away’—Macknight,) to renew them again unto repentance.” 

We here enter into no discussion of the peculiar character of these 
apostates, farther than to observe, 1. That their apostasy was hopeless— 
it was “impossible to renew them again unto repentance;” this the 
Calvinists admit. 2. Their state had been hopeful. This is evident 
from the reason given for the subsequent hopelessness of their condition. 
If, as here stated, the hopelessness of their condition arose from the 
impossibility of “renewing them again unto repentance,” it necessarily 
follows that if they could have been thus “renewed,” their case would 
have been hopeful. And if so, then their case once was hopeful; for 
the hopelessness of their condition is made to appear, not from the 
“impossibility” of “renewing them” unto a genuine repentance, which 
(according to Calvinism) they had never experienced, but the same 


276) ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. teBas 


repentanee which they once had. This is evident from the import of 
the word “aGary”’—* It is impossible to renew them again unto repent: 
ance.” Therefore it follows that their former repentance was genuine; 
and these apostates had evidently passed from a hopeful to a hopeless 
condition. As the condition of the Calvinistically reprobate is never 
hopeful, they could not have belonged to that class; and as the eondi 
tion of the Calvinistically elect is never hopeless, so neither could they 
have belonged to that class. It thus appears that the above passage 
cannot be interpreted on Calvinistie principles; nor in any way, with 
consistency, without admitting the possibility of salvation to all men. 

Again, that the Scriptures are full of cautions to the righteous, and 
warnings against apostasy, is admitted by Calvinists. From this it may 
be conclusively argued, 1. That, upon the supposition that the righteous 
are in no danger of final apostasy, there can be no propriety in warning 
them against it. 2. If the righteous are in danger of final apostasy, 
then it follows, either that the reprobate, according to Calvinism, may 
obtain pardon here, or that the elect may perish everlastingly: either 
of which is destructive to the Calvinistic tenets, and aemonstrative that 
the cautions and warnings given to the righteous in the Scriptures, can 
only be consistently interpreted upon the supposition that salvation is 
attainable by all men. 

The sum of what has been said is briefly this: The Scriptures prove 
the proposition with which we set out— 

1. By those texts in which, in speaking of the death or atonement of 
Christ, terms of universality are used. 

2. By those which contrast the death of Christ with the fall of our 
first parents. 

3. By those which teach that Christ died for such as do, ov may. 
perish. 

4. By those which authorize the preaching of the gospel to all men, 
aid require all men to repent and believe. 

5. By those which show that salvation is offered to all, and that men’s 
failure to obtain it is attributable to their own fault. 

6. By those which teach the possibility of final apostasy from the 
faith, and warn Christians against it. 

According to the plain and unsophisticated meaning of all these 
vlasses of Scripture texts, we think it has been made to appear that 
the atonement of Christ so eatends to all men as to make their salvation 
attainable. 

In this discussion, we have appealed directly to the Scriptures, and 
although we have only adduced a small number of the passages which 


Ch. xxi.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 277 


directly bear upon the question, yet we deem farther quotations on this 
head unnecessary. 

It remains yet to consider those passages from which Calvinists 
deduce inferential proofs of their peculiar views of predestination, elec- 
tion, etc., and the bearing of those subjects upon the great question 
before us, as well as to examine the prominent reasons by which the 
view herein presented has been defended or assailed. But these points 
we defer for another chapter. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXI. 
Question |. What is the substance of | 14. Upon what class of texts is the fifth 


the brief account given of Armin- argument based ? 
ianism ? 15. What are the texts adduced ? 
2. In what three points connected with | 16. In what manner have Calvinists re- 
the proposed question do all gen- plied ? 
uine Arminians agree? 17. From whom is a quotation made for 
3. Why may we appeal with confidence illustration ? 
to the Scriptures on this question? | 18. What is said in reference to this quo- 
4. What is the main proposition con- tation? : 
sidered in this chapter? 19. In what manner is the argument 
5. Upon what class of texts is the first from these passages of Scripture 
argument based? carried out? 
6. What are the passages adduced? 20. Upon what class of texts is the sixth 
7. In what way do Calvinists attempt argument based ? 
to evade their force? 21. What two great doctrines are here 
8. What is the reply to their reasoning said to be intimately connected? 
on this subject ? 22. What are the texts adduced? 
9. Upon what class of texts is the sec- | 23. How is the argument founded upon 
ond argument. based, and what are them ? 
they? 24. How is an argument founded upon 
10. Upon what class of texts is the third the cautions given to Chris 
argument based ? tians? 
11. What are the texts, and how is the | 25. How is the whole argument of this 
proof deduced? chapter summed up? 
12 Upon what class of texts is the| 26. What grand proposition does it es- 
fourth argument based? tablish? 


13. What are the texts, and how is the | 27. What important points are deferred 
proof deduced? for another chapter? 


278 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. Uti 


CHAPTER XXII. 


THE ATONEMENT— ITS EXTENT — PREDESTINATION, ELECTION, FORD 
KNOWLEDGE, AND SOVEREIGNTY. 


In the preceding chapter, we endeavored to prove, by a direct appeal 
to the Scriptures, that the atonement so eatends to all men as to make sal- 
vation possible for them. 

That there are no texts of a direct and positive character in the Bible 
to disprove this position, has, by Calvinists themselves, generally been 
admitted. Yet, by inferential evidence from Scripture, as well as 
by a train of philosophical reasoning, they have endeavored to build 
up and sustain a system of doctrine exhibiting a partial atonement, 
or, at least, an atonement which does not make salvation possible for all 
mankind. 

In order to sustain this system, Calvinists argue from the subject of 
the divine prescience, predestination, election, the divine sovereignty, 
ete., as they conceive them to be taught in the Bible. A particular 
examination of those subjects, so as to show that, according to the true 
interpretation of Scripture, no good reason can be deduced from that 
source in opposition to the general position which we have endeavored 
to sustain, is the matter now claiming our attention. 

That the doctrines of the divine prescience and divine sovereignty, of 
predestination and election, are taught in the Bible, is admitted by 
Arwinians as well as Calvinists. None who admit the truth of reve- 
lation can deny them. Yet, with regard to their true import, there 
has been much controversy; nor is it likely that, on these difficult 
questions, a unity of sentiment among professed Christians is soon to be 
realized. 

The Arminian understands these subjects, as presented in the Scrip- 
tures, in perfect consistency with the great doctrine of general redemp- 
tion, which provides, according to the proposition established in our last 
chapter, a possible salvation for all men; whereas the Calvinist under- 
stands them in such sense as to deduce from them arguments, satisfactory 
to his mind, for the establishment of his peculiar views of particular 


Ch. rxii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 27Y 


redemption, and a special provision for the salvation of the elect, to the 
exclusion of any possibility of salvation to the rest of mankind. 

Whether the Calvinists can really establish their peculiar views upon 
these subjects from the Scriptures, we shall presently consider. But, in 
order that we may proceed with as much fairness as possible, we choose, 
first, briefly to state the leading features of their system, in the See USES 
of their own acknowledged standards. 

As the “Westminster Confession of Faith” is not only in doctrine 
the standard of the Church of Scotland, but also of the English and 
American Presbyterians, we quote from that volume, Chapter III., as 
follows: 

“3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some 
men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore- 
ordained to everlasting death. 

“4, These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreérdained, are 
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain 
and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. 

“5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before 
the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and 
immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his 
will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free 
grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or 
perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as 
conditions or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his 
glorious grace. 

“6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the 
eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreérdained all the means 
thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are 
redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his 
Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept 
by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other 
redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
saved, but the elect only. 

“7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearch- 
able counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth 
mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his crea- 
tuces, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their 
sin, t the praise of his glorious justice.” 

To complete more fully the account of this doctrine, we also quote 
from the “Larger Catechism,” adopted by the Church of Scotland, the 
answers to the twelfth and thirteenth questions: 


250 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.3 


“God’s decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his 
will; whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchange- 
ably foredrdained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concern 
ing angels and men. 

“God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for 
the praise of his glorious grace to be manifested in due time, rath elected 
some angels to glory; and, in Christ, hath chosen some men to eternal 
life, and the means thereof; and also, according to his sovereign power, 
and the unsearchable counsel of his own will, (whereby he extendeth or 
withholdeth favor as he pleaseth,) hath passed by and foredrdained the 
reat to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of 
the glory of his justice.” 

As a comment upon the foregoing articles, and as a brief and com- 
prehensive summary of the principal features in the Calvinistic scheme, 
we subjoin the following from Dr, Hill: 

“These quotations suggest the following propositions, which may be 
considered as constituting the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, and 
in which there is an explication of most of the terms: 

“1. God chose out of the whole body of mankind, whom he viewed 
in his eternal decree as involved in guilt and misery, certain persons 
who are called the elect, whose names are known to him, and whose 
number, being unchangeably fixed by his decree, can neither be increased 
nor diminished; so that the whole extent of the remedy offered in the 
gospel is conceived to have been determined beforehand by the divine 
decree. 

“2. As all the children of Adam were involved in the same guilt and 
misery, the persons thus chosen had nothing in themselves to render 
them more worthy of being elected than any others; and therefore the 
decree of election is called in the Calvinistic system absolute, by which 
word is meant that it arises entirely from the good pleasure of God, 
bevause all the circumstances which distinguish the elect from others 
are the fruit of their election. 

“3. For the persons thus chosen, God from the beginning appointed 
the means of their being delivered from corruption and guilt; and by 
these means, effectually applied in due season, he conducts them at length 
to everlasting life. 

“4, Jesus Christ was ordained by God to be the Saviour of these 
persons, and God gave them to him to be redeemed by his blood, to be 
called by his Spirit, and finally to be glorified with him. All that 
Christ did in the character of Mediator, was in consequence of this 
original appointment of the Father, which has received from many 


Ch. xxii. THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 281 


divines the name of the covenant of redemption—a phrase which sug- 
gests the idea of a mutual stipulation between Christ and the Father, 
in which Christ undertook all that work which he executed in his human 
nature, and which he continues to execute in heaven, in order to save 
the elect—and the Father promised that the persons for whom Christ 
died should be saved by his death. According to the tenor of ths eov- 
enant of redemption, the merits of Christ are not considered as the 
cause of the decree of election, but as a part of that decree—in other 
words, God was not moved by the mediation of Christ to choose certain 
persons out of the great body of mankind to be saved, but having 
chosen them, he conveys all the means of salvation through the channel 
of this mediation. 

“5, From the election of certain persons, it necessarily follows that 
all the rest of the race of Adam are left in guilt and misery. The 
exercise of the divine sovereignty in regard to those who are not elected, 
is called reprobation; and the condition of all having been originally 
the same, reprobation is called absolute in the same sense with election. 
In reprobation there are two acts, which the Calvinists are careful to 
distinguish. The one is called preterition, the passing by those who are 
not elected, and withholding from them those means of grace which 
are provided for the elect. The other is called condemnation, the act 
of condemning those who have been passed by, for the sins which 
they commit. In the former act, God exercises his good pleasure, 
dispensing his benefits as he will; in the latter act, he appears as a 
judge, inflicting upon men that sentence which their sins deserve. 
If he had bestowed upon them the same assistance which he pre- 
pared for others, they would have been preserved from that  sen- 
tence; but as their sins proceeded from their own corruption, they 
are thereby rendered worthy of punishment, and the justice of the 
Supreme Ruler is manifested in condemning them, as his mercy is 
manifested in saving the elect.” (Hill’s Lectures, Book IV., Chap. vii, 
Sec. 3.) 

According to the foregoing account, it appears that the following are 
leading tenets in the Calvinistic scheme, viz.: 

1. That by predestination, foreérdination, or the decrees of God, all 
things, whether great or small, whether good or evil, whether they relate 
t the physical or moral universe, whether they relate to the history of 
angels or to the actions of men, were, from all eternity, or before time 
began, firmly and unalterably fixed and determined, according to the 
will of God. 

2. That by this predestination, or foredrdination, “some men and 


232 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1.B.8 


angels” were elected or chosen to everlasting life, and others reprobated 
or set apart to everlasting death. 

3. That the election of some, andthe reprobation of others, had 
no regard to faith and obedience on the one hand, or unbelief and 
disobedience on the other, as foreseen conditions, or causes leading 
thereunto. 

4, That this election and reprobation are personal, unconditional, and 
absolute, insomuch that the “number of the elect” or of the reprobate 
can “neither be increased nor diminished.” 

5. That the election of some, and the reprobation of others, is the 
sole originating cause of the faith and obedience of the elect, on the one 
hand, and of the lack of faith and obedience of the reprobate on the 
other. 

To sustain the peculiarities of the system which we have thus briefly 
sketched, the Calvinists appeal to the scriptures in which the doctrines 
of predestination and election are taught, and institute a course of rea- 
soning founded mainly on the divine prescience and sovereignty. That 
we may have a clear view of the subject, and understand the nature of 
their arguments, we now proceed particularly to the investigation of the 
Scripture doctrine of election, predestination, ete. 

I, GENERAL IMPORD OF ELECTION. The term election, in the Greek 
Testament, is éxAoy#, a choice, from the verb éxAéyw, to choose; hence 
the signification of the verb to elect is to choose, and the noun election 
signifies a choice. According to this definition of the term, we may 
easily perceive that, upon principles of rationality, several things are 
indispensable to constitute election. 

1. There must be an intelligent agent to choose. As the act. of choos- 
ing can only be performed by an intelligent being, to suppose an election 
to exist without such an agent would be absurd. 

2. This intelligent being must be possessed of the principle of free 
moral agency. Choice necessarily implies freedom; hence, if the sup- 
posed agent be not morally free or unnecessitated in the act, he cannot, 
in the proper sense, be an agent at all, but is only an instrument, 
wielde1 by impelling forces; and in such case, as there could be no 
choice, in the true import of the term, so there could be no election. 

3. In the next place, there must be objects presented to the mind of 
this intelligent agent, in order that he may make the choice, or selection. 
To suppose an election to exist where there are no objects in reference 
to which to make the choice, would be as absurd as to suppose that 
there could be color, division, or figure, without something colored, 
divided, or figured. 


Ch. xxii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 284 


4, Next, there must be a difference, real or imaginary, in the objects, 
in reference to which the choice is made. Where there is no difference, 
in the proper sense, there can be no choice. It is true, that two or more 
objects may be presented to the mind, and the one may be taken, and 
the others left, merely because it is not convenient or proper to take all; 
but in this case, there cannot properly be any rational choice. A choice 
or election implies a reason on which it is founded; and this reason, or 
ground of choice, must be supposed to exist in the objects in reference 
to which the choice is made. | 

5. There must be a time in which the act of choosing takes place. 
To suppose that an act has been performed, and yet to suppose that 
there was no time in which it was performed, is manifestly absurd. 
Hence, we must either deny that to choose or elect is an act at all, or 
we must admit a time for its performance. 

Now, we think it must be so plain that all the above specified partic- 
ulars are essential to constitute election, that farther illustration or 
proof would be needless. Wherever the five particulars above enume- 
rated are found to unite, an election must exist; but if any one of the 
five be lacking, an election cannot, on rational principles, exist. With 
these remarks upon the general definition of election, we proceed to 
examine the Scripture illustration of this doctrine. 

II, SPECIFIC KINDS OF ELECTION. In opening the Bible upon this 
subject, we find that there are several different kinds of election pre- 
sented to our view. 

1. There is a personal election of individuals to a special office or 
work. 

Christ was chosen, or elected, to the great office of Mediator and 
Redeemer, that he might enter upon the great work of saving an apos- 
tate world. In reference to this election, we read, in Isa. xlii. 1: 
“Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul 
delighteth.” 

King Cyrus was also chosen, or elected, for the special work of 
rebuilding the temple. In reference to this work, he was “called” by 
the Lord, and designated as his “shepherd” and “his anointed.” 

The “twelve apostles” were elected to their peculiar office by the 
Saviour; and St. Paul was specially chosen, or elected, to be the “apostle 
of the Gentiles.” 

In reference to this species of election, a little reflection will evince 
that it perfectly accords with the general definition of the subject given 
above. All the five requisites to constitute election may readily be seen 
to meet in each case specified. And although it is personal, individual, 


284 6uKMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1 B.5 


and, in a certain sense, absolute, yet it has no reference whatever to the 
fixing of the eternal destinies of men. 

The Saviour was chosen as the great Redeemer of the world, because 
he was the only proper and adequate Being for the accomplishment of 
the exalted work. 

Cyrus was selected as a suitable character for the instrumental accom- 
plishment of the divine purpose in the rebuilding of the temple; but 
this election neither secured nor prevented the eternal salvation of the 
Persian monarch. 

The “twelve apostles” were chosen by our Lord, as suitable persons 
to accompany him in his itinerant ministry, to be witnesses of his 
miracles and of his resurrection, and to be the first ministers of his 
religion; but this election did not absolutely secure their eternal sal- 
vation, for one of their number grievously apostatized and went to 
perdition. 

St. Paul was elected as a suitable minister to bear the gospel message 
to the learned Gentiles; but this election did not absolutely secure his 
eternal salvation, for we hear him strongly expressing his fears “ lest 
that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be 
a castaway.” So that it is clear that, from this personal and individual 
election to a peculiar office or work, no countenance is given to the 
Calvinistic notion of personal and unconditional election, from all eter- 
nity, to everlasting life. 

2. The second species of election presented in Scripture is that of 
NATIONS, 0” BODIES OF PEOPLE, to the participation of peculiar privi- 
leges and blessings, conferred upon them for the accomplishment of some 
great object of divine benevolence, in reference to others as well as to 
themselves. 

(1) Thus, Abraham and his descendants were anciently chosen as the 
peculiar people of God, to receive the divine law, to become conserva- 
tors of the true worship, and to be the means of illumination, and of 
great and numerous blessings, to the world at large. In reference to 
this election, we read, Amos iii. 2: “You only have I known of all the 
families of the earth.’ 1 Chron. xvi. 13: “Ye children of Jacob, his 
siosen ones.” Acts xiii. 17: “The God of this people of Israel chose 
our fathers, and exalted the people when. they dwelt as strangers in the 
laud of Egypt.” Deut. x. 15: “The Lord had a delight in thy 
fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you, 
above all people.” Deut. xiv. 2: “The Lord hath chosen thee to be 
a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the 
earth.” 


Uh, xxil.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 28E 


Thus we discover that the Jews, as a nation, were, in a certaiL sense, 
an elect, chosen, and peculiar people; but this election, as all must 
adinit, did not absolutely secure their eternal salvation. Their election, 
as a nation, had no such design, as we may see from the fact that many 
of them were not saved. This truth the Apostle Paul abundantly 
teaches. He says that “with many of them God was not well pleased, 
for they were overthrown in the wilderness.” He specifies that some of 
them were “ idolaters,” some were “fornicators,” some “tempted Christ,” 
and that God “sware in his wrath that they should not enter into his 
rest.” These were the “chosen, elected,” and “ peculiar people” of God. 
How vastly different is this from the Calvinistic, eternal, and uncondi- 
tional election and reprobation, by which the everlasting destiny of 
“men and angels” is said to be unalterably fixed! 

In this national election of the Jews there is also implied a corre- 
sponding national rejection, or reprobation, of the Gentiles. Election 
and reprobation are inseparable: the one necessarily implies the other. 
In the same sense in which the Jews were elected, the Gentiles were 
reprobated. As the former were elected to the enjoyment of peculiar 
privileges, so the latter were reprobated in reference to those privileges 
—that is, they were not called to their enjoyment, or placed in their 
possession. This national election, though we may admit that it con- 
ferred peculiar blessings upon one nation, which were denied to all 
others, yet it appears to present nothing in the divine administration 
revolting to the most pleasing and exalted view that can be taken of the 
principles of justice, equity, and benevolence. For be it remembered, 
that in proportion as the Jews were exalted above the Gentiles in point 
of privilege, even so, on that very account, more was required at their 
hands. 

It is one of the unalterable principles of the divine government, that 
“unto whomsoever much is given, of him shal] be much required,” and 
vice versa. The man to whom “five talents” had been given, was 
required to improve all that he had received, while he to whom but 
“one talent” had been given, was only required to improve the same. 
Thus, while the Jews, to whom had been “committed the oracles of 
God,” and to whom “pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the cove 
nants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the prom- 
ises,” were required to serve God with a fidelity and devotedness pro- 
portionate to their superior light and privileges, the Gentiles were only 
required to improve the privileges which had been conferred upon them, 
and to live up to the degree of light they possessed. Notwithstanding 
this election of the Jews to privileges so exalted, yet, as we have seen, 


286 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [To 15 Bas 


they were liable to misimprove them, and many of them did so misim- 
prove and abuse them as to perish everlastingly; and finally, this chosen, 
elect, and peculiar people, for their wickedness and idolatry, their unbe- 
lief and rebellion, were severed and overthrown as a nation, their civil 
polity uprooted, their ecclesiastical establishment demolished, and the 
once favored tribes of Abraham doomed to wander in degradation and 
groan for centuries beneath the ban of Heaven. 

But how was it with the Gentiles? Did this national election and 
reprobation, according to the Calvinistic interpretation of this doctrine, 
consigi. them to inevitable and eternal destruction? By no means. 
The supposition is not only repugnant to reason, and revolting to the 
feelings, but destitute of the least shadow of support from Scripture. 
In allusion to God’s method of dealing with the ancient Gentiles, St. 
Paul says: “And the times of this ignorance God winked at”—that is, 
sent them no prophets to instruct them better, and consequently, in 
judging them, only required of them according to what they had. 

St. Paul, in the second chapter to the Romans, clearly shows that 
“there is no respect of persons with God;” and that “the Gentiles, which 
have not the law,” may “do by nature (that is, by the assistance which 
God affords them, independent of the written law) the things contained 
in the law,” act up to the requirements of “their conscience,” and be 
esteemed as “just before God.” That those whom God saw proper to 
leave for a season in a state of Gentile darkness—destitute of written 
revelation—were not thereby precluded from all possibility of eternal 
salvation, is farther evident from several instances recorded in Scripture 
of pious heathen—such as Melchizedek, Job, and Cornelius; but 
the language of St. Peter must set this question at rest: “Of a 
truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every 
nation, he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted 
with him.” ' 

Since, then, it is obvious from what has been said, that the national 
election of the Jews, and reprovation of the Gentiles, did not absolutely 
secure the salvation of the former, or the damnation of the latter, it is 
plain that from this election Calvinism can derive no aid. Indeed, so 
far was the calling of Abraham, and the establishment of the Church 
in his family, from implying the absolute dereliction of the Gentiles to 
eternal ruin, that it was designed as a means of illumination, and an 
unspeakable blessing, even to them. The establishment of the true 
worship in the family of Abraham was designed to counteract the prev- 
alence of idolatry among the surrounding nations; and the entire Jew- 
ish system of jurisprudence and religion was indeed a “light shining in 


Ch. xxii] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 287 


a dark place.” The peculiar position of their country, their intercourse 
with surrounding nations, both through commerce and by reason of 
their frequent captivities, with many concurring circumstances, tended 
to diffuse abroad the lights and blessings of Judaism. Even at their 
temple, there was found “the court of the Gentiles,” where the “stran- 
ger from a far country” might join in the worship of the true God. 
How plain then must it be, that this election of one nation to peculiar 
privileges was designed also to “bless,” though in a less degree, “all the 
families of the earth.” 

(2) A second example of this species of election is presented in the 
calling of both Jews and Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel Church. 

There is a reference to this election in the following passages:—1 
Pet. v.13: “The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you.” 
1 Pet. ii. 9: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy 
nation, a peculiar people.” 1 Thess.i.4: “Knowing, brethren beloved, 
your election of God.” 

That we may the better understand this election, be it remembered 
that the Jews, in many respects, were a typical people. Their calling 
and election to the peculiar privileges of the Mosaic dispensation were 
typical of the calling and election of both Jews and Gentiles to the 
superior privileges of the gospel. In the days of the apostles, the old 
dispensation gave place to the new. The Mosaic institution received 
its fulfillment; and vast multitudes of both Jews and Gentiles were 
called and elected to the glorious privileges of the gospel Church; not 
by virtue of natural descent from Abraham, but through the medium 
of “faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” The privileges to which they were 
here elected were both external—embracing all the means of grace, and 
outward blessings of Christianity; and internal—embracing the spirit: 
ual enjoyments and blessings of pure and heart-felt religion. Many 
were externally embraced in the Church, and in that sense elected to 
its privileges, who were not elected to the full enjoyment of the spiritual 
blessings of the gospel. The cause of this distinction is obvious. The 
condition upon which they could be elected to the external privileges 
was that of a formal profession; but the condition of election to the 
full privileges of the Church, both external and internal, both temporai 
and spiritual, was that of faith in God’s Messiah. Many, no doubt, 
enjoyed the privileges of the former, who never attained unto the priv- 
ileges of the latter, election. In reference to this, it may be said that 
“all were not Israel who were of Israel”—all were not elected to the 
spiritual who shared the external privileges of the gospel; but election 
in the external sense was in order to, or designed to promote, election 


288 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i, B. 3 


in the more proper sense, to the full enjoyment of the blessings of the 
gospel. ; 

But let us inquire, in the next place, how this election to the privi- 
leges of the gospel Church, both external and spiritual, comports with 
the Calvinistic scheme. The election taught in that system is, 1. Eter- 
nal—* from all eternity.” 2. It is unconditional—* without any fore- 
sight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any 
other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes moving him there- 
unto.” 3. It absolutely secures their eternal salvation—* their number 
is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased nor dimin- 
ished.” 

Now, it can easily be proved that the election under consideration 
contains not one of the attributes of Calvinistie election as just pre- 
sented. 

(1) It is not eternal. Jews and Gentiles are called and elected to the 
privileges of the gospel, not “from all eternity,” but in time. They are 
called by the gospel and elected, as the apostle has said, “ through sanc- 
tification of the Spirit unto obedience.” 

(2) It is not unconditional. “ Repentance toward God, and faith in 
our Lord Jesus Christ,” are everywhere presented as the condition upon 
which the privileges of the gospel Church are to be enjoyed. 

(3) It does not absolutely secure the eternal salvation of those thus 
elected. ‘That this is true so far as it is applied to the election to the 
external privileges of the gospel, Calvinists themselves will admit; and 
that it is also true as applied to the election of true believers to the 
spiritual, as well as the outward, privileges of the gospel, is evident from 
the numerous warnings given to such characters against “turning back 
to perdition,” making “shipwreck of the faith,” or “departing from the 
living God;” and especially is it evident from the language of St. 
Peter, where he exhorts believers to “give diligence to make their eall- 
iny and election sure.’ Now, if it had been made sure “from all 
eternity,” their “diligence” could not possibly have any tendency to 
make it sure. Again: the Calvinistic view of election absolutely pre- 
cludes the non-elect from all possibility of salvation; but this election 
of collections of persons to gospel privileges has no such bearing 
whatever. Thousands who were not thus elected, or who were not of 
the Church in the apostles’ days, have been brought in in subsequent 
times; and the gospel is still spreading more widely its influence, and 
swelling the number of its elected members. This Calvinists cannot 
deny. 

Again, this election of Christians to Church privileges, so far from 


Ch. xxii.] THE ATONEMENi—I’S EXTENT. 289 


being an evidence that others, not yet thus elected, are thereby excluded 
froia the favor of God, has a direct tendency, and is really designed, to 
extend to them the same blessing of gospel fellowship. The Church is 
styled “the light of the world,” and “the salt of the earth.” This nec- 
essarily implies that those beyond its pale may become partakers of 
the same “light,” and be purified by the same preservative grace, of 
which the actual members of the Church are now possessed. Henet 
we may arrive fairly at the conclusion that this election of nations, or 
large bodies of people, to the enjoyment of peculiar privileges afforde 
ho support to Calvinistic election. 

3. The third and last species of election which we shall notice, 
as presented in the Bible, is that of individuals chosen, or elected, to eler- 
nal life. 

This is brought to view in the following passages of Scripture :—Matt. 
xxii. 14: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Eph. i. 4: “Ac- 
cording as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love.” 1 Pet. 
i. 2: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through 
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood 
of Jesus Christ.” Col. iii. 12: “Put on therefore, as the elect of God, 
holy and beloved,” ete. 

These, and many other passages, although they may apply to that 
“collective” election already described, yet we admit that they also 
express the peculiar favor by which God calls and elects to eternal life 
all the finally faithful. That election of this personal’and individual 
kind is frequently alluded to in the Scriptures, is admitted by Armin- 
ians as well as Calvinists; but the great matter of dispute relates to 
the sense in which the subject is to be understood. Calvinists say that 
this election is “from all eternity;” this Arminians deny, except so 
far as the foreknowledge or purpose of God to elect may be termed 
election. 

Upon this question, then, concerning the eternity of personal and 
individual election, we remark, first, that to suppose that actual 
election can be “from all eternity,” appears manifestly absurd, and 
inconsistent with the import of the term to elect. It signifies to 
choose: this implies an act of the mind, and every act implies a 
time in which it took place, and consequently a time before it took 
place. Hence it would appear that, unless we make the act of 
election an essential part of the divine nature, (which is absurd,) it 
cannot be eternal; for that attribute wil] apply properly to the divine 
essence only. 

19 


290 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pra 


Again, the eternity of actual election is not.only absurd, as we have 
seen, but it is also unscriptural. 

St. Peter calls the saints, “elect, through sanctification of the Spirit,” 
etc. Now, if they are elected “through sanctification of the Spirit,” 
they could not have been elected till they were sanctified by the Spirit, 
uniess we say that the end precedes the means leading to that end, 
or that the effect precedes the cause, which is absurd. St. Paul styles 
the saints, “chosen through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of 
the truth.” Now, according to the same reasoning, they could not 
have been actually chosen before they believad the truth; conse- 
quently their actual election cannot be “from all eternity.” We know 
that St. Paul, in the passage quoted, says: “God hath from the beginning 
chosen you,” ete. But this cannot prove the eternity of actual election, 
without, as we have seen, contradicting what immediately follows; and 
we may be sure that the apostle did not mean to contradict himself. 

The meaning of St. Paul may be explained by the language of St. 
Peter, when he styles the saints “elect according to the foreknowledge of 
God” —that is, in the purpose of God. So, St. Paul may mean that 
“God hath from the beginning (according to his foreknowledge, or in 
his purpose) chosen you,” etc. 

But even if we take the phrase “from the beginning” to refer to 
the commencement of the world, when God first laid the plan of sal- 
vation through Christ, it will not follow that the personal election 
of the Thessalonians was unconditional. The words may: merely 
iniply that God. from the very first institution of the covenant of 
grace, determined, from a foresight that they would believe and em- 
brace the go-.pel, through that means to save them from their sins, 
and admit them to the heavenly felicity. So, then, we perceive that, 
whether we understand the texts in question to refer to the unconditional 
election of the believing charaster, according to the settled principles 
of the gespel, or to the conditional election of individual persons, 
according t» the same divinely established condition of faith, in either 
case, there can be nothing derived from this source to justify the Cal- 
vinistic scheme of eternal, unconditional, and personal election to ever 
lasting life. 

That the Calvinistic view upon this subject is self-contradictory and 
absurd, may easily be shown by adverting to the true definition of elec- 
tion, and calling to mind the several indispensable requisites for its 
existeac’, according to what has already been shown. 

In ~iew of these principles, then, we will briefly consider this per 
sona} ele:tion to eternal life. 


Ch. xxii. THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 291 


1. Before an election can exist, according to the principles of ration- 
ality, there must be an intelligent agent to perform the act of choosing. 
In reference to the election in question, God is this agent. St. Paul 
says: “According as he (God) hath chosen us in him,” etc. On this 
point there can be no controversy. All agree that God is the great 
intelligent agent who chooses, or elects, whom he will to eternal life. 

2. The second requisite to an election is, that the agent who per- 
forms the act of choosing be possessed of moral freedom. Here, also, 
there can be no controversy. All must agree that the Divine Being 
possesses moral freedom in the highest possible acceptation. He doeth 
“his good pleasure,” and “ worketh all things after the counsel of his 
own will.” | 

3. The third thing requisite to constitute election is, that objects be 
presented to the mind of the intelligent agent, in reference to which he 
may make the choice. Here the Calvinistic scheme begins to limp; for 
if election be “from all eternity,” it took place before the objects or 
persons existed concerning whom it was made. But if it be said that 
it took place in the purpose of God, who, looking forward into futurity, 
“seeth the end from the beginning,” then it will follow that it was not 
actual election at all, but only a determination to elect in futurity, and 
Calvinism falls to the ground. The former position is absurd, the lat- 
ter gives up the question; and Calvinists may elect either horn of the 
dilemma. 

4, The fourth thing requisite to constitute election is, that there be a 
real or imaginary difference in the objects in reference to which the 
choice is made. The word imaginary is here inserted in order to make 
the definition apply to election universally, whether fallible man or the 
Infinite Mind be the agent in the choice; but as God is infinite in knowl- 
edge, it is clear that the term can have no application when the choice 
is performed by him; therefore, before the election in question can exist, 
there must be a real difference in, the objects or persons concerning 
whom the choice is made. Even an intelligent creature can make no 
rational choice where no supposed difference exists, and can we suppose 
that the infinite God will act in a manner that would be justly deemed 
blind and irrational in man? The thought is inadmissible. However 
far beyond the ken of the puny intellect of man the principles may lie 
which sway the divine determinations, yet we may be well assured that 
every act of Deity is based upon a sufficient and infallible reason. If 
God selects, or chooses, some men to eternal life, and rejects others, ae 
all admit to be the fact, there must be a good and snfficient reason for 
this election. 


292 ELEMENTS UF DIVINITY. (I. is B. 3, 


It will nut do for Calvinists piously to tell us that “the Judge of all 
the earth will do right,” and to think that this will put out of sight the 
difficulty which their doctrine here involves. That God will “do right,” 
all admit; but the question is, How can he do right if Calvinism be true# 
Nor will it do for them to tell us that this election is “according to the 
good pleasure of God’s will.” This we admit; but the question is, How 
can the Calvinistic presentation of this subject be reconciled with the 
declarations of Scripture in reference to the divine will? Does not Cal- 
vinism, by telling us that this election of some men to eternal life is 
“without any foresight of faith. .r good works, or perseverance in either 
of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions or causes mov- 
ing him thereunto,” render this election perfectly irreconcilable with the 
divine character? 

If, as Calvinism teaches, this choice of some men and rejection of 
others is made without any reference whatever to moral character, but 
according to the “good pleasure of God,” we might perhaps still sup- 
pose that there was a sufficient reason to justify it, though concealed 
from our view; were it not that we are immediately informed that the 
moral character of the elect and reprobate, as contemplated by the 
Almighty in his electing love, was precisely the same. This tenet of 
Calvinism not only puts the reason of the choice beyond our reach, 
but it does more—it puts it out of existence; for if the reason be not 
founded on moral character, there is no consideration left, according to 
the Scriptures, upon which it can be founded. Agreeably to the Bible, 
in the awards of the judgment-day, moral character alone is taken 
into the account; and this is the only ground of distinction by which 
God can be influenced, in determining one person for glory and another 
for perdition. As Calvinism disavows this distinction as having any 
influence in election, it deprives the Divine Being of any possible reason 
worthy of his character for the personal election of men to everlasting 
life. 

If it be said, Calvinists themselves declare that God always acts 
rationally, and has an infinite reason for all his acts, we reply, that this 
only proves that their system is self-contradictory; for, as we have already 
shown, their scheme discards any difference in the moral character of 
men as influencing election; and the Scriptures everywhere show that 
God, in his dealings with men in reference to eternity, can be swayed 
by no other consideration. 

We arrive at the conclusion, therefore, that however different the 
teachings of Calvinism, if one man is elected to everlasting life and 
another consigned to perdition, it is not the result of an arbitrary, capri- 


‘h, wxii.} THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 293 


cious, and unreasonable partiality, but accords with reason, equity, and 
justice, and is-a gloriotis display of the harmonious perfections of God. 
It is because the one is good and the other bad; the one is righteous 
and the other unrighteous; the one is a believer and the other an 
anbeliever; or the one is obedient and the other rebellious. These are 
the distinctions which reason, justice, and Scripture recognize; and 
we may rest assured they are the only distinctions which God 
regards in electing his people to glory, and sentencing the wicked to 
perdition. 

5. The last thing requisite to constitute election is, that there be a 
time at which the act of choosing takes place. As has already been 
shown, the election of individuals to eternal life may be considered as 
existing only in the foreknowledge or purpose of “od, or it may be 
viewed as actual. There is no possible middle grow.d between these 
positions. If we adopt the former, and say that election is only “ from 
all eternity” when viewed as the divine purpose to elect, we renounce 
one of the favorite dogmas of Calvinism, which holds that election is 
absolute from all eternity, and in no sense dependent on, or resulting 
from, foreknowledge. If we adopt the latter, we are involved in the 
absurdity of saying that an actual choice has been made, and yet that 
there was no time in which the act took place. And more than this, 
we also contradict the Scripture, which plainly teaches that men are 
actually chosen to eternal life when they accede to the conditions of the 
gospel; their election is “through faith”—“sanctification of the Spirit, 
and belief of the truth.” From what has been said, we think it evi- 
dent that neither the election of individuals to a particular office or 
work, nor the election of nations, or bodies of people, to peculiar privi- 
leges, nor that of individuals to eternal life, gives the least sanction to 
the Calvinistic scheme. 


294 


Qoesticy 1. From what subjects do Cal- | 12. 


il 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


[P. 1. B. 3 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXII. 


vinists argue, to sustain their sys- 
tem ? 

. Are election, predestination, etc., 
Scripture doctrines? 

. How are they understood by the 
Arminian ? 


. How by the Calvinist? 


. What summaries of Calvinis:: are 
quoted? 

. From what is the term election de- 
rived? 


. What five particulars are presented, 


as essential to constitute election ’ 


. What is the first election mentioned? 
. What instances of it are given? 
10. 


Why does it give no support to Cal- 
vinism ? 

What is the second species of elec- 
tion specified? 


13. 
14. 


. In_ what 


What is the first instance given of 
this? 

What scriptures contain it? 

How does it appear that it gives no 
support to Calvinism? 


. What is the next instance given? 
. In what scriptures 


is it con- 


tained? 


. How does it appear that it gives ne 


support to Calvinism? 


. What is the third species of elec- 


tion? 


scriptures is it con- 


tained ? 


20. Does it afford any support to Cal- 


vinism ? 


. Do the five requisites of election 


apply to it? 


. Do they in the Calvinistic sense? 
. How may this be shown? 


oh. xxi.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 2vh 


CHAPTER XXIII. 


FHE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT— ELECTION AND PREDESTINATION ~ 
SPECIAL SCRIPTURES EXAMINED. 


In the preceding chapter, we progressed so far in the investigation of 
the subject of election, predestination, etc., as, first, to exhibit a brief 
view of the Calvinistic scheme, as set forth in the acknowledged stand- 
ards of several Calvinistic Churches; and, secondly, to present what 
we conceive to be the scriptural account of this subject. 

We now proceed to examine the Scripture testimony which Calvinists 
have alleged in support of their doctrine. To enter upon an exegetical 
discussion of every passage which they have quoted upon this subject, 
would be unnecessarily tedious; as the entire weight of their argument 
may be fully seen by an attention to those few prominent texts, which 
they almost invariably quote when they touch the Arminian contro- 
versy, and on which they mainly rely. Here the Bible of the Calvinist 
will almost instinctively open upon the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chap- 
ters of the Epistle to the Romans. 

I. We notice their argument from what is said in reference to Jacob 
and Esau. 

Rom ix. 11-16: “(For the children being not yet born, neither hav- 
ing done either good or evil, that the purpose of God, according to 
election, might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) it was said 
unto her, (Rebecca,) The elder shall] serve the younger. As it is written, 
Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? 
Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to 
Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have 
compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then, it is not of 
him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth 
mercy.” 

After the unanswerable refutations of the Calvinistic construction of 
this passage, furnished by such commentators and divines as Whitby, 
Taylor, Benson, Fletcher, Adam Clarke, etc., it is a little surprising 
that an, intelligent Calvinist should continue to argue from it in favor 
of absolute personal election. This is more especially remarkable, as 


26 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B. 3. 


several of the most acute divines of the Calvinistic school have been 
impelled by candor to adopt the Arminian interpretation of the passage 
now before us— among whom we might mention Dr. Macknight of 
Scotland, and Professor Stuart of Andover. The latter, however, 
appears not so fully to renounce the Calvinistic interpretation as the 
former; but that he yields one of the principal points, may be seen 
from the following remarks on the thirteenth verse “The precedence, 
then, of Jacob is established by this declaration; but in what respect? 
In a temporal one, it would seem, so far as this instance is concerned. 
That the whole refers to the bestowment of temporal blessings, and the 
withholding of them, is clear, not only from this passage, but from 
comparing Gen, xxv. 23, xxvii. 27, etc. As to éulonoa, its meaning 
here is rather privative than positive. When the Hebrews compared a 
stronger affection with a weaker one, they called the first love, and the 
other hatred.” 

After referring such as desire a critical and minute exposition of this 
passage to the commentators already mentioned, we may observe that 
the argument for personal and absolute election to eternal life, from this 
passage, is entirely dependent upon two positions, which, if they can be 
fairly proved, will establish the Calvinistic view; but a failure to estab- 
tish either of them, will be fatal to the whole scheme. These positions 
are, 1. That the election here spoken of referred to Jacob and Esau, 
personally and individually. 2. That it referred to the absolute deter- 
mination of their eternal destiny. Now, if either of these positions is 
seen to be untenable, notwithstanding the other may be established, it 
will inevitably follow that the election here presented to view, so far 
from establishing the Calvinistic doctrine, tends directly to its overthrow. 
How much more signal, then, must be the defeat of the Calvinist, if, 
upon examination, both these principles are found to be not only unsus- 
tained, but positively disproved! Such, we think, will be the result of 
an impartial investigation. 

1, Then we inquire whether this election referred to Jacob and Esau 
personally and individually. 

That it did not, but was intended to apply to two Ratoni pos- 
terity of Jacob, (the Jews,) and the posterity of Esau, (the Edomites) 
—is evident, 1. From the language of the entire passage, of which the 
apostle, in accordance with his manner, only quotes as much as was 
essential to his argument. The passage is recorded in Gen. xxv. 23: 
“And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and twa 
manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one 
people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve 


th. xxiii.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 297 


the younger.” So far, then, from the apostle referring to Jacob and 
Esau personally, we here have the direct Scripture to prove that 
although the names of Jacob and Esau are used, it is in a representa- 
tive sense. ‘“ ‘Two nations,” or “two manner of people,” were the sub- 
ject of the prophecy. Concerning them, and not concerning Jacob and 
Esau, personally, it was said, “the elder shall serve the younger,” and 
that “one shall be stronger than the other.” 2. As it is contrary to the 
language of the prophecy that this passage should apply personally to 
Jacob and Esau, so it is contrary to the truth of history. sau never dia 
“serve” Jacob personally. 

Again: from the first chapter of Malachi, it may be clearly seen 
that the nations of the Israelites and Edomites, and not the persons of 
Jacob and Esau, were the subject of the prophecy. “The burden of 
the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, (Israel, 
not Jacob,) saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? 
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord; yet I loved Jacob and 
I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the 
dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom (not Esau personally ) 
saith, We are impoverished,” etc. Thus we see, from the Scriptures 
themselves, that the passage under consideration determines nothing 
in reference to Jacob and Esau, personally. Hence there can be no 
ground here for establishing the doctrine of personal and unconditional 
election. 

2. We inquire whether this election referred to the determination of 
the eternal destiny of the persons concerned. 

Now, even if it could be made appear (which we have just seen to 
be contrary to Scripture) that Jacob and Esau are here personally 
referred to, Calvinism can derive no support, unless it be also shown 
that this election and reprobation, or this loving of Jacob and hating 
of Esau, referred to their eternal destiny. That it had no reference 
whatever to their eternal destiny, either as individuals or nations, but 
that it related entirely to temporal blessings, we might almost leave 
to the testimony of the most intelligent Calvinistic commentators them- 
selves. 

The decision of Professor Stuart on this point we have already seen. 
His words are, “The whole refers to the bestowment of temporal bless- 
ings, and the withholding of them,” and he directly sanctions the inter- 
pretation that the term éuéonoa, in the phrase, “Esau have I hated,” 
implies not positive hatred, but only a less degree of love. 

Macknight says: “What God’s hatred of Esau was, is declared in 
the words of the prophecy which immediately follow, namely, ‘and laia 


298 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.A 


iis mountains waste’” As Macknight was himself a Calvinist, and 
taught the doctrine of absolute and personal election, though he 
acknowledged it was not contained in the scripture before us, his testi- 
mony may, ou that account, be deemed the more valuable ; hence we 
quote from him the following acute observations : 

“1, It ig neither said, nor is it true, of Jacob and Esau personally, 
that the ‘elder served the younger.’ This is only true of their poster 
ity. 2. Though Esau had served Jacob personally, and had been infe- 
rior to him in worldly greatness, it would have been no proof at all of 
Jacob’s election to eternal life, nor of Esau’s reprobation. As little was 
the subjection of the Edomites to the Israelites in David’s days a proof 
of the election and reprobation of their progenitors. 3. The apostle’s 
professed purpose in this discourse being to show that an election he- 
stowed on Jacob’s posterity by God’s free gift might either be taken 
from them, or others might be admitted to share therein with them, it 
is evidently not an election to eternal life, which is never taken away, 
but an election to external privileges only. 4. This being an election 
of the whole posterity of Jacob, and a reprobation of the whole descend- 
ants of Esau, it can only mean that the nation which was to spring from 
Esau should be subdued by the nation which was to spring from Jacob ; 
and that it should not, like the nations springing from Jacob, be the 
Church and people of God, nor be entitled to the possession of Canaan, 
nor give birth to the seed in whom all the families of the earth were to 
be blessed. 5. The circumstance of Esau’s being elder than Jacob was 
very probably taken notice of, to show that Jacob’s election was contrary 
to the right of primogeniture, because this circumstance proved it to be 
from pure favor. But if his election had been to eternal life, the cir- 
cumstance of his age ought not to have been mentioned, because it had 
no relation to that matter whatever.” 

We deem it useless to detain upon this subject. From what has been 
said, we arrive at the conclusion— 

1. That this election was not personal, but national. 

2. That it related, not to eternal life, but to temporal blessings. 

The opposite of both these positions is essential to Calvinistic election ; 
sherefore it follows that this stereotyped argument of Calvinism, from 
the mooted case of “Jacob and Esau,” so far from being sustained by 
Scripture, has been doubly confuted. 

II. The second argument which we shall notice, as relied upon by 
the Calvinist, is based upon what is said in reference to Pharaoh, and the 
“potter and the clay.” 

The passage is recorded in Rom. ix. 17-24: ‘ For the Scripture 


Ch. xxiii.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 299 


saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, 
that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be 
declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom 
he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say 
then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his 
will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall 
the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me 
thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump tu 
make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor ? What if God, 
willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with 
much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction ; and that 
he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, 
which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, 
not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?” 

That the argument attempted to be based upon this passage may 
be clearly seen in all its force, and fairly tested in as small a compass 
as practicable, we propose, first, to specify the several points insisted 
upon by Calvinists, the establishment of some, or all, of which is essen- 
tial to the support of their doctrine, and then to examine the evidence 
by which these several points are assumed to be established. These 
points are— 

1. That Pharaoh is given as an instance of unconditional and eternal 
reprobation, being created for the express purpose that the “ power of 
God” might “be shown” in his eternal destruction. 

2. That the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was effected by a direct 
influence, or positive influx, from God. 

3. That in the reference to the parable of “the potter,” the making 
of the “one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor,” is designed 
to represent the right of God to create one man expressly for eternal 
life, and another for eternal destruction. 

4, That the “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” are designed to 
represent persons expressly.and designedly created and prepared by the 
Almighty for eternal death), 

5. That the object of the apostle, in referring to the case of Pharaoh, 
and to the parable of the “ potter and the clay,” was to illustrate the 
doctrine of personal, unconditional, and eternal election and reproba- 
tion. 

Were it necessary, it might easily be shown by a reference to numer- 
ous Calvinistic commentators and divines, that the above is a fair pre- 
sentation of the positions assumed by them, when they would establish 
their system by a reference to the passage in question; but this, we 


300 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pr Bae 


presume, cannot be denied ; for it must be perceptible to every reflect- 
mg mind that, so far as reliance is placed on the scripture now before 
us, the peculiar dogmas of Calvinism must stand or fall with the above 
propositions. 

And we may now be permitted in candor to say, that it will not be 
a difficult task to show that the above propositions resemble far more a 
gross perversion than a fair exposition of Scripture. This we shall 
endeavor to evince, by examining each proposition separately. But, 
first, we would frankly acknowledge that all the above propositions 
have not been fairly avowed by all who have been considered Calvin- 
ists; but at the same time it must be conceded, on the other hand, that 
so far as any of them have been renounced, all dependence for the sup- 
port of Calvinism from that source has also been relinquished. 

Some Calvinistic writers have based the defense of their system on 
one, some on another, and some on several, of the above positions; but 
seldom, if ever, has the same writer expressly avowed his reliance on 
all of them. Still it should be borne in mind, that if Calvinism can 
derive any support whatever from the passage in question, it must be 
by a reliance on some of the positions above presented ; consequently, 
if we can show that none of them can fairly be sustained, this strong- 
hold of Calvinistic defense will be demolished. But to proceed— 

1. The position is assumed that Pharaoh is given as an instance of 
unconditional and eternal reprobation, being created for the express pur- 
pose that the “power of God” might be shown in his eternal destruction. 

If this proposition can be sustained by a fair exegesis of the Scrip- 
ture, then it would seem to follow that, as Pharaoh had been created 
expressly and designedly for eternal death, it would not be inconsistent 
with the divine attributes to suppose that the reprobate in general were 
created for the same purpose; and this, we confess, would go far toward 
establishing Calvinistic reprobation. What, we ask, is the evidence 
here relied upon? It is this sentence: “ Even for this same purpose 
have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee.” Now, 
before this passage can be made to sustain the proposition in question, 
it must be shown that the phrase, “I have raised thee up,” implies, I 
have created thee; and that the phrase, “that I might show my power 
in thee,” implies that I might eternally punish thee. That neither of 
these positions can be sustained, we shall immediately show. 

(1) The word here rendered “ raised up,” is éé7yyetpd, from éeyeipw, 
That this word does not mean to create, but merely to rouse up, or to 
excite, or (as seems most in accordance with dvetne7nOy¢, the word used 
in the Septuagint) to make to stand, or to preserve, is a point conceded 


Ch. rxiii.] THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 301 


even by Macknight and Prof. Stuart. The following is the language 
of the latter, in loc.: “ What, then, is the sense of éeyeipw, as employed 
in Hellenistic Greek? In the Septuagint it is a very common word. 
being used some seventy times. In none of these cases does it mean to 
create, to produce, to raise wp, in the sense of bringing into being, ete. ; se 
that those who construe é&jyetod oe, I have created thee, or brought thee 
into existence, do that which is contrary to the Hellenistic usus logreendi.” 

Whitby translates the sentence thus: “I have made thee to stand.” 
The Targum of B. Uziel: “I have kept thee alive.” Macknight favors 
the sense of “having preserved thee” from the plagues, ete. He para- 
phrases the words as follows: “Even for this same purpose T have 
raised thee and thy people to great celebrity, and have upheld you dur. 
ing the former plagues, that, in punishing you, I might show my power, 
and that my name, as the righteous Governor of the world, might be 
published through all the earth.” 

If, in addition to the literal import of the original word, we take inte 
consideration the connection of the passage in the ninth of Exodus, 
from which the apostle quotes, we may readily be convinced that there 
was no reference here to the creation of Pharaoh for a specific purpose. 
The allusion evidently was to the preservation and prosperity of the 
Egyptian king and people, and especially to their deliverance from the 
plagues with which they had been visited. These had not only been 
brought upon them by the hand of God, but the same hand was alone 
able to remove them. And but for the “long-suffering” of God, the 
king and people of Egypt must have perished under the first plagues; 
but God bore with them: he “made them to stand;” he preserved 
them for farther trial, and for a farther display of his glory. So that, 
without a violent and palpable perversion of the sense, there is not 
found the least shadow of ground for the notion that Pharaoh was here 
said to he ereated for a special purpose. There is nothing here said or 
implied on that subject whatever. Hence we discover that the first 
branch of this position of Calvinism, so far from being sustained, is 
clearly refuted. It cannot be argued from the case of Pharaoh, that 
the reprobate were created with the express design that they might be 
unconditionally destroyed; and any thing short of this, fails in sustain- 
ing the Calvinistic scheme. 

(2) The second branch of the position is, that the phrase, “that 1 
might show my power in thee,” implies, that I might eternally punish thee. 

This the language of the text itself contradicts. The im port of the 
phrase, “that I might show my power in thee,” is clearly inferable trom 
what immediately follows, which is exegetical of, or consequent upon, 


302 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (PuttB°S 


what precedes. It does not follow, and that thou mightest be eternally 
punished; but the language is, “and that my name might he declared 
in all the earth.” The grand design of the Almighty, then, was not a 
display of his power in the eternal destruction of Pharaoh, but a dec- 
laration of his own name “ throughout all the earth.” For the accom- 
plishment of this “ purpose” of mercy, Pharaoh and his people were 
raised up and preserved, as suitable instruments. And this purpose God 
would accomplish through them, whether they repented and submitted 
to his authority or not. 

Had Pharaoh not hardened his heart, but yielded to the evidence of 
the miracles and power of the true God, he might have been the hon- 
ored instrument of proclaiming, from his commanding position on the 
throne of Egypt, that the God of Israel was the true God, and that 
therefore all nations and people should honor and serve him; and in 
this way the “power of God might have been declared,” and some 
knowledge of the true worship disseminated among all the Egyptians, 
and all the nations with whom they had intercourse. But as the king 
of Egypt voluntarily resisted the truth, refused to acknowledge the 
dominion of Jehovah, and impiously demanded, “Who is the Lord, 
that I should obey his voice to Jet Israel go?” God determined to show 
forth his power in Pharaoh, by sending plague after plague, and still 
affording him longer trial and additional testimony, that the fame of 
these wonders, and of the signal overthrow of the Egyptians, might be 
spread far and wide among the nations. But in all this, there is not one 
word, either said or implied, about Pharaoh’s being created, or even 
“raised up,” expressly that God might display his power in his eternal 
destruction. The design was, according to the plain declaration of 
Scripture, not that God “ might show his power” in the eternal destruc- 
tion of Pharaoh, but in the “declaring of his own name throughout all 
the earth.” Thus we see, then, that this first position of Calvinism, in 
neither of its branches, finds any support in the Bible; but, on the con- 
trary, is fairly disproved. 

2. The second position of Calvinism is, that the hardening of Pharaoh’s 
heart was effected by a direct influence, or positive influx, from God. 

This position, on which is based the strength of the Calvinistic argu- 
ment from the case of Pharaoh, has been assumed, but never has been 
proved. Indeed, the evidence is very plain to the contrary. There are 
two senses in which God may be said to harden the hearts of men; and 
it is probable that this took place, in both senses, with Pharaoh and the 
Egyptians. 

(1) The first is, by sending them mercies, with the express design 


Ch. xxiii] THE ATONEMENT—I'TS EXTENT. 3038 


that they may be melted into contrition and led to reformation; the 
natural cunsequence of which, however, will be, that if they resist these 
mercies, they will be left harder and more obdurate than they were 
before. In this sense it is that the gospel is said to be (2 Cor. ii. 16) 
“in them that perish, a savor of death unto death,” and (Rom. ii. t, 5) 
the ungodly are said to “despise the riches of the goodness, and for- 
bearance, and long-suffering” of God, and “after their hardness and 
impenitent hearts,” to treasure up “wrath against the day of wrath.” 
And in the same sense the Lord “endured with much long-suffering 
the vessels of wrath”—that is, he waited long with the Egyptians, and 
delivered and “raised them up” from many plagues, that they might 
see “his power,” and be led to own his dominion. 

(2) The second sense in which God may be said to harden the hearts 
of men is that of a judicial dereliction, or a righteous withholding, of 
his restraining grace. This takes place after men have had a fair trial 
been faithfully warned, and long borne with; and is not effected by any 
active exertion of divine power upon them, or any positive infusion of 
evil into them, but results necessarily from God’s ceasing to send them 
his prophets and ministers, and withholding from them his Holy Spirit. 
The remarks of Macknight on this subject deserve special regard: 

“Tf this is understood of nations, God’s hardening them means his 
allowing them an opportunity of hardening themselves, by exercising 
patience and long-suffering toward them, This was the way God hard. 
ened Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Ex. vii.3: ‘Iwill harden Pharaoh’s 
heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.’ 
For when God removed the plagues one after another, the Egyptians 
took occasion from that respite to harden their own hearts. So it is 
said, Ex. vili. 15: ‘But when Pharaoh saw that there was a respite, he 
hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as the Lord had said. 
(See Ex. viii. 32.) 

“Tf the expression, ‘whom he will he hardeneth,’ is understood ot 
individuals, it does not mean that God hardens their hearts by any posi- 
tive exertions of his power upon them, but that by his not executing 
sentence against their evil works speedily, he allows them to go on in 
their wickedness, whereby they harden themselves. And when they 
have proceeded to a certain length, he withholds the warnings of 
prophets and righteous men, and even withdraws his Spirit from them, 
according to what. he declared concerning the antediluvians, Gen. vi. 3: 
‘My Spirit shall not always strive with man.’ The examples of Jacob 
and Esau, and of the Israelites and the Egyptians, are very properly 
appealed to by the apostle on this occasion, to show that, without injua 


304 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.3 


tice, God might punish the Israelites for their disobedience, by casting 
then: off, and make the believing Gentiles his people in their place.” 

Hence it is clearly evident that from the Scriptures we have no 
ground for believing that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh by a 
direct influen.e, and positive infusion, of evil; and therefore the second 
position of Calvinism falls to the ground. 

_ 8. The third position of the Calvinist, which we proposed examining, 
is that in the reference to the “parable of the potter,” the making of 
“one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor,” ts designed to repre- 
sent the right of God to create one man expressly for eternal life, and 
another for eternal destruction. 

This position contains the very essence of the Calvinistic peculiarity. 
If it can be sustained, there is nothing left between Calvinism and Ar- 
minianism worthy of contention; but if it cannot. be sustained, then it 
will follow that this hackneyed argument of the Calvinist, drawn from 
the parable of “the potter and the clay,” is “weighed in the balances 
and found wanting.” Now we think that it is only necessary to exam- 
ine carefully the entire passage in Jeremiah, from which. the apostle 
quotes, in order to see that it has no reference whatever to the eternal 
destiny of individuals. 

The whole passage reads thus:—Jer. xviii. 1-10: “The word which 
came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Arise and go down to the 
potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I 
went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the 
wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand 
of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seeined good to the 
potter to make it. Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying, O 
house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. 
Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O 
house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, 
and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy 
it; if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their 
evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at 
what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a king- 
dom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in my sight, that it obey not 
my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would ben- 
efit them.” In regard to this parable, we may observe— 

(1) It has no reference to the creation of individual persons, but to 
God’s sovereign dominion over nations or kingdoms. God does not 
say, “at what time I shall speak concerning” an individual person; but 
“concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom.” 


ams. 


pi, ees F 


3h. xxiii.) THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 305 


(2) It has no reference to the eternal destiny of men; but to the over- 
throw or prosperity of kingdoms in this world. The language is, “to 
pull down and to destroy” —that is, to overturn the polity, or destroy 
the power, of a nation as such; or “to build and to plant”—that is, to 
establish, strengthen, and prosper, an earthly kingdom. 

(3) This calamity and prosperity are not presented as the result of 
the mere arbitrary will of God, absolute and unconditional, but it is 
clearly expressed that they are conditional—subject to be influenced by 
the conduct of the nations referred to. 

(4) It is not intimated that the potter made even the “vessel unto 
dishonor,” expressly to destroy ii. The reverse of this is most certainly 
true. Although all vessels are not designed for a purpose of equal 
honor or importance, yet none are formed merely to be “dashed in 
pieces,” 

(5) The potter did not change his design in making the vessel, so as 
to form it “another vessel,” which we may suppose to be a “ vessel unto 
dishonor,” till it first “was marred” in his hand. It failed to answer 
his first intention. | 

(6) This whole parable was designed to express God’s sovereign right 
to deal with the Jews as seemed good in his sight. Not to prosper or 
destroy them according to an arbitrary will; but to govern them accord- 
ing to the fixed principles of his righteous administration. ‘To permit 
them to be carried into captivity, when they became wicked and rebel- 
lious, and to restore them to their own land and to their former pros- 
perity when they repented. 

(7, As this parable was originally used to justify the dealings of God 
in. reference to the Jewish nation in the days of Jeremiah, so it was 
strikingly illustrative of the justice of God in destroying the idolatrous 
Pharaoh and the Egyptians after having long borne with them, and it 
was also well adapted to show the propriety of God’s rejecting the unbe- 
lieving Jews from being his Church, and receiving into its pale the 
believing Gentiles, in the apostle’s day; and this was the very subject 
which the apostle was considering. From all this, we arrive at the 
conclusion that, so far from this parable being designed to teach an 
unconditional and absolute election and reprobation of individuals to 
eternal life and eternal death, it is only intended to exhibit a conditional 
election and reprobation of nations, in reference to the present world. 
And thus we perceive that this third position of Calvinism, in reference 
to the subject before us, is plainly contradicted by the Scriptures. 

4. The fourth position of Calvinism which we proposed to consider is, 
that the “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” are designed to repre 

20 


806 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 8 


sent persons expressly and designedly created and prepared bu the Almighty 
for eternal death. 

The comment of Calvinists generally on this subject is, that God not 
only determined from all eternity to sentence a portion of mankind to 
eternal death, but that he predrdained the means as well as the end. 
Hence those who by the decree of God are designed for eternal death, 
are, by the same decree inevitably operating in their case, “fitted,” or 
prepared, for their unalterable and unavoidable destiny. 

The manner in which many Calvinists speak in reference to this dark 
feature of their system is a little curious. Some, like the bold and inde- 
pendent Calvin himself, look it full in the face, and frankly confess that 
“it is a horrible decree,” whilst others conduct themselves warily, and 
neither directly avow, nor plainly deny, the consequences of their doc- 
trine; but at the same time indirectly evince that even in this matter 
they are Calvinists still. 

The controversy in reference to the phrase, “fitted to destruction, 
regards the agency by which this is effected. On this passage, Prof. 
Stuart remarks: “ Now, whether they came to be fitted merely by their 
own act, or whether there was some agency on the part of God which 
brought them to be fitted, the text of itself does not here declare. But 
in our text how can we avoid comparing Kkatnptiopéva, in verse 22, with 
& mponroiuace, in verse 23? The two verses are counterparts and anti- 
thetic; and accordingly we have oxetn dpyic, to which oxedn éréove 
corresponds, and so el¢ dta@Aeray and eic dééav. How can we help con- 
eluding, then, that katyptiopéva and & mpontoipace correspond in the 
way of antithesis?” 

Although there is here apparent some reserve in the mode of expres- 
sion, yet the clear inference is, that according to Prof. Stuart, there is 
a perfect antithesis between the “ vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” 
in the 22d verse, and “the vessels of mercy prepared unto glory,” in 
the 23d verse; and that God exercised a similar agency in both cases— 
that is, that God not only directly prepares his people for eternal life, 
but that he directly fitteth the wicked for eternal death. 

We may suppose, however, that if the learned Professor had not felt 
some concern for the cause of Calvinism, he might have told us that it 
is not necessary in every case where antithesis is used, that the figure 
should be applied to every part of the subject. There may be antithesis 
between the “vessels of wrath” and the “vessels of mercy ;” but it 
does not follow that both must have been fitted, or prepared, in the same 
way. Indeed, the very opposite of this is fairly inferable from the Jan- 
guage itself. The “vessels of mercy” are said to have been “afore 


Ee 


Ch. xxiii.j THE ATONEMENT—ITS EXTENT. 307 


prepared unto glory” by the Lord; but the “vessels of wrath” are 
merely said to be “fitted unto destruction.” It is not said by whom. 
Hence the plain inference is, that as God is expressly said to be the 
agent in preparing “the vessels of mercy,” had he also been the agent 
in fitting the “vessels of wrath,” a similar form of speech would have 
been used in both cases. To suppose that God exercises a direct agency 
in “fitting” men for destruction, is contrary to the scope of this passage, 
which declares that he “endured with much long-suffering” these “ves- 
sels of wrath;” and also at war with the general tenor of Scripture, 
which, in the language of Mr. Fletcher, represents “salvation to be of 
God, and damnation to be of ourselves.” Hence we find that this fourth 
position of Calvinism is contrary to the Scriptures. 

5. The last position of the Calvinist which we proposed to consider is, 
that the object of the apostle, in referring to the case of Pharaoh and 
to the parable of the potter and the clay, was to illustrate the doctrine of 
personal, unconditional. and eternal election and reprobation. 

That the apostle had quite a different object in view, we think is plain 
from the whole connection. It was national and not personal election 
and reprobation of which he was speaking. This is evident from the 
24th verse of the chapter which we have been considering: “ Even us 
whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.” 
The object of the apostle was to silence the objecting Jew, and to jus- 
tify the divine procedure in the establishing of the gospel Church, of 
believers, whether Jews or Gentiles. Hence it is plain that the entire 
argument of the Calvinist, for personal and unconditional election and 
reprobation, from the Epistle to the Romans, is founded on a misappli- 
cation of the whole subject—applying what is said of nations to indi- 
viduals, and what is said in reference to time to eternity. 

The apostle continues the discussion of this national election through- 
out the tenth and eleventh chapters; but to follow him farther we deem 
unnecessary, as the principles already presented and established will 
sufficiently illustrate the whole subject. We thought it only necessary 
to examine the passage mainly relied upon by the Calvinist ; and the 
result is, that we find therein no support for Calvinistic election and 
reprvbation. 

III. The third and last Scripture argument relied upon by the Cail 
vinist, which we shall here notice, is founded upon what ts said in refer- 
ence to predestination, etc., in the first chapter of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians, and the eighth chapter to the Romans. 

The passages read as follows :—Eph. i. 4, 5, 11, 12: “According as 
he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we 


508 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pree Bs 


should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predex 
tinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, 
according to the good pleasure of his will. .... In whom also we 
have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the pur- 
pose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 
that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.” 
Rom. viii. 28-30: “And we know that all things work together for good 
to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his 
purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be 
conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born 
among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he 
also called ; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he 
justified, them he also glorified.” 

Perhaps no word in the whole range of theology has given rise to a 
greater degree of intricate speculation and ardent controversy than the 
word predestinate, which occurs in the above passages. The words here 
rendered “did predestinate,” and, “ having predestinated,” in the Greek 
Testament, are mpowptoe and mpoopicac, and are derived from 7pé, 
before, and dpigw, I define, finish, bound, or terminate. Hence we have 
the English word horizon, from épo¢, a boundary, or limit. The literal] 
import of predestinate is therefore to define, describe, limit, or fix the 
boundaries beforehand. 

In the language of Calvinists, predestination is a term of more exten- 
sive import than election. By the latter, they understand the divine 
selection from all eternity of a portion of mankind for eternal life; by 
the former, they understand not only the predetermination of the eicct 
for eternal life, but also the predrdaining of the reprobate to eternal 
death ; and in a still wider sense, they understand it to mean God's 
eternal decree, by which he “hath foredrdained whatsoever comes to 
pass.” 

The Arminians, although they discard predestination in the absolute 
and unconditional sense of the Calvinists, yet acknowledge that there 
is a sense in which it is a true doctrine of revelation. 

1. They understand by predestination, the divine predetermination in 
reference to nations. Thus they hold that the Jews were predestinated 
to be the Church of God, under the Old Testament dispensation, and 
that, under the gospel, it was predestinated that the Church should con- 
sist of both Jews and Gentiles, admitted on the condition of faith. 

2. By predestination, they understand the divine predetermination to 
save the believing character, as declared in the gospel. 

3. By predestination, they understand the divine predetermination ta 


Sh. xxiii. | THE ATONEMENT—ITS EX'TEN'. 309 


save all persons who will believe the gospel, upon the condition of persevering 
faith. 

Here, then, are three different senses in which Arminians admit that 
predestination may scripturally be understood. The first relates to 
nations, or bodies of people; the second relates to certain characters; 
and the third relates to individuals conditionally. As the last is the only 
view of the subject in which the eternal destiny of individual persons 
is embraced, and as that is conditional, it follows that predestination, 
in any of these acceptations, is essentially variant from the Calvinisde 
theory, 

The three essential attributes of Calvinistic predestination are, 1. 
That it relate to individual persons. 2. That it be unconditional—not 
dependent on the foresight of faith and obedience, or unbelief and as 
obedience. 3. That it relate to the eternal destiny of men. 

Now it will be perceived that all these attributes meet in no one of 
the views presented as held by Arminians. National predestination, 
and that which relates to certain characters, may be unconditional; but 
here the eternal destiny of individuals is not fixed. Personal predesti- 
nation, which alone fixes the destiny of individuals, is always under- 
stood by the Arminian as being conditional—founded upon the divine 
prescience, which fully contemplates and strictly regards the condition 
of faith and good works, as presented in the gospel. 

We will now inquire, briefly, whether the Calvinistic or the Arminian 
view of this subject accords with the above quoted scriptures. 

1, We notice the passage in Ephesians. This Dr. Macknight, a Cal- 
vinist, acknowledges is a national predestination, (though he still 
contends for a higher meaning.) And that it refers especially to the 
calling of the Gentiles to the fellowship of the gospel, is evident. from 
the entire scope of the Epistle. In continuation of the same subject, 
the apostle proceeds, and in the third chapter speaks of the “m ystery” 
that was “made known to him by revelation,” and this he defines to be 
“that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and 
partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel ;” and he adds that 
this is “according to the eternal purpose which he (God) purposed in 
Christ Jesus our Lord.” Here, then, is the plain comment by the 
apostle himself, on the import of the “ predestination,” and “the mystery 
of God’s will,” according to his good pleasure, purposed in himself, 
which were spoken of in the first chapter. If it still be contended, 
as Macknight thinks it should, that there is a reference here to personal 
predestination to eternal life, the fact is not denied; although the 
national predestination of the Gentiles is the point directly referred to 


810 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 3. 


by the apostle, yet this always contemplated, and was designed to pro- 
mote, the eternal salvation of individuals. But the moment we contem 
plate it as personal predestination to eternal life, it becomes conditional. 
The Gentiles were only embraced in this sense as they became believers, 
and upon the condition of their faith. This is plain from the 12th and 
13th verses ur the first chapter: “That we should be to the praise of 
his glory who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trustec, after 
that ye heard the word of truth.” So we perceive that in no sense in 
which the subject can be viewed, is any countenance here given to the 
Calvinistic version of predestination. 

2. Equally difficult will it be found to construe the passage in the 
eighth chapter to the Romans, according to Calvinistic principles. 

Arminians have differed somewhat in the construction of this passage. 
Dr. Clarke seems to confine it to the national call of the Gentiles to 
gospel fellowship: in this, he followed the comment of Dr. Taylor. 
But Mr. Watson thinks personal election to eternal life is here embraced. 
We think that both national and personal predestination are included. 
1. The~Gentiles, as a people, because God foreknew that they would 
believe and embrace the gospel, were predestinated to the enjoyment of 
its privileges. 2. Genuine and persevering believers, because God fore- 
knew them as such, were predestinated to be “conformed to the imay'e 
of his Son.” They were “ called, justified, and glorified.” But all th’s 
was conducted according to the regular gospel plan. Their predestinu- 
tion was founded upon the foreknowledge of God, which contemplate 
them as complying with the condition of faith as laid down in the 
gospel. Here, then, we can see no ground at all for the Calvinistie 
notion of absolute and unconditional election or predestination to eter- 
nal life, irrespective of faith or good works. 

We have now briefly examined those texts which have ever been 
considered as the strongholds of Calvinism, and think we have clearly 
shown that they are susceptible of a different and much more consistent 
interpretation. There are other passages which they frequently urge 
in support of their doctrine; but we*deem it useless to detain longer. 
W: have selected the principal and most difficult; and from the solu- 
tions already furnished, the proper explanation of others will be readily 
presented, in perfect consistency with a possible salvation for all ‘nankind 


Ch xxiii.) 


THE ATONEMENT—I'TS EXTENT. 


511 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXIII. 


Question 1. Upon what scripture do the 


2. 


Calvinists found their Jjirst argu- 
ment which is here noticed? 
What commentators are named as 


hav:ng refuted the Calvinistic con- | 


struction of this passage? 


. What Calvinistic commentators are 


named as having favored the Ar- 
minian construction? 


. Upon what two positions is the Cal- 


vinistic argument here dependent? 


. How is it proved that this election 


and reprobation did not refer to 
Jacob and Esau personally # 


. How does it appear that it did not 


refer to the eternal destiny of those 
concerned? 


. Upon what passage is the second 


Calvinistic argument here noticed, 
founded ? 


. What are the several positions here 


presented as essential to sustain 
the Calvinistic argument from this 
passage? 


. How is the first position disproved ? 
10. 
11. 


How the second? 
The third? 


12. 


13. 


14. 


15. 


16. 


ue 


18. 


19. 


20. 


The fourth? 

The fifth? 

Upon what is founded the third 
Calvinistic argument here no- 
ticed? 

What is the literal meaning of pre- 
destinate ? 

In what sense do Calvinists under- 
stand this doctrine? _ 

How is it understood by Arminians? 

What is the essential difference be- 
tween Calvinistic and Arminian 
predestination ? 

How is it shown that the texts 
quoted accord with the Arminian 
theory? 

Have Arminians all agreed in their 
explanation of the passage quoted 
from Rom. vili.? 


. What is the probable meaning of 


that passage ? 


. Are there any other passages ap- 


pealed to by Calvinists? 


. Are they more difficult than the 


ones selected ? 


. Upon what principle may they he 


explained? 


312 RFLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.S 


CHAPTER XXIV. 


CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED. 


Havina progressed so far in the investigation of the extent of the 
atonement as, first, to consider the Scripture testimony in favor of the 
Arminian view, and, secondly, to examine some of the principal Scrip 
ture proofs relied upon by Calvinists for the establishment of their 
system, we now proceed to institute a comparison between Calvinism 
and Arminianism, by an examination of the leading difficulties with 
which each of these systems has been said, by the opposite party, to be 
encumbered. 

I. We will notice the principal objections which Calvinists have 
alleged against the system of Arminianism. The following are all that 
we deem worthy of consideration : 

1. Calvinists allege that Arminianism is contrary to fact. 

2. That it 13 contrary to grace. 

3. That it is inconsistent with the divine sovereignty. 

These difficulties we will present in the language of Dr. Hill, as 
follows : 

“1. It does not appear agreeable to fact that there is an adminis- 
tration of the means of grace sufficient to bring all men to faith and 
repentance. 

“9. The second difficulty under which the Arminian system labors 
is this, that while in words it ascribes all to the grace of God, it does 
in effect resolve our salvation into something independent of that 
grace. 

“3. This system seems to imply a failure in the purpose of the 
Almighty, which is not easily reconciled with our notions of his sover- 
eignty.” 

The three difficulties above specified are more fully expressed by the 
same author in another place, as follows: 

“1. It is not easy to reconcile the infinite diversity of situations, and 
the very unfavorable circumstances, in which many nations, and some 
individuals of all nations, are placed, with one fundamental position of 


Ch. xxiv.} CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED. 513 


the Arminian system, that to all men there are administered means 
sufficient to bring them to salvation. 

“2. It is not easy to reconcile those views of the degeneracy of human 
nature, and those lessons of humility and self-abasement in the sight 
01 God, which both Scripture and reason inculcate, with another funda- 
mental position of that system, that the faith and good works of those 
who are elected did not flow from their election, but were foreseen by 
(rod as the grounds of it. 

“3. It is not easy to reconcile the immutability and efficacy of the 
divine counsel, which enter into our conceptions of the First Cause, 
with a purpose to save all, suspended upon a condition which is not 
fulfilled with regard to many.” (Hill’s Lectures, Chap. ix., See..1, and 
Chap. vii., See. 4.) 

We know of no difficulty urged by Calvinists, as involved in the 
Arminian view of the extent of the atonement, meriting a serious reply, 
which may not properly be embraced under one or the other of the 
preceding divisions. The difficulties above described, it must be con- 
fessed, are of so grave a character, that a clear demonstration of their 
real existence must be a sufficient refutation of the system to which 
they adhere. The system of revealed truth is perfectly consistent 
throughout, and completely harmonious with the correct view of the 
divine attributes, If, then, it can be satisfactorily shown that the Ar- 
minian system really labors under any one of the above difficulties, how- 
ever plausible the argument for its support may have appeared, we shall 
be compelled to renounce it; but we think a close examination of the 
subject will evince that the objections named by Dr. Hill are entirely 
groundless. We will examine them separately. 

1. The first alleges that the Arminian system is contrary to fact. 

The great distinguishing feature of Arminianism, as has been 
exhibited in the preceding chapters, is a belief in the truth of the fol- 
lowing position: that the atonement of Christ so extends to all men as 
i. render their salvation attainable. That this is inconsistent with fact, 
is argued by the Calvinist, both from the supposed destitution of the 
means of grace in heathen lands, and from the great inequality in the 
distribution of those means in those countries where the gospel is pub 
lished. 

(1) First, we will consider the subject in reference to the case of the 
heathen. i 

We think it must be clear that the objection to a possible salvation 
for all men, as deduced from the condition of the heathen, can only be 
sustained upon the supposition that the destitution of their condition is 


$14 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (PriP B28. 


such as to render their salvation utterly impossible. Hence Calvinists 
have generally, so far as they have expressed an opinion upon this sub- 
ject at all, consigned the entire mass of the heathen world to inevitable 
destruction. That this bold stand is assumed by all Calvinists, cannot 
be affirmed; for many of them hesitate to express any opinion on the 
subject, and others clearly intimate that there may be, even among the 
heathen, some elect individuals, upon. whose hearts divine grace may, in 
some incomprehensible manner, so operate as effectually to call and 
prepare them for glory. But then it must be plain that such as assume 
this ground can charge upon the system of Arminianism no inconsist- 
ency with fact, in relation to the heathen, that does not pertain equally 
to their own system. 

As, therefore, the objection itself rests upon the assumed position 
that the heathen are necessarily precluded from the possibility of salva- 
tion, it is an obvious begging of the question. The very position upon 
which it depends for all its force, is what is denied, and ought first to be 
proved. But what entirely destroys the objection is, that this position 
never has been, and never can be, proved. In relation to the heathen, 
we may freely admit, 1. That their privileges are far inferior to those 
conferred upon nations favored with the light of the gospel. 2. That 
this national distinction is fairly attributable to divine sovereignty, 
which, for wise and inscrutable reasons, may dispense peculiar blessings, 
in an unequal degree, to different nations and communities, and even to 
different individuals. 

But the great question is, Does it follow, from this inequality in the 
distribution of privilege, that the least favored are entirely destitute 
of a sufficiency of grace to render their salvation possible? This none 
can with safety affirm. In reference even to the heathen, the Scriptures 
declare that God “left not himself without witness, in that he did good, 
and gave” them “rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling” their 
“hearts with food and gladness.” Acts xiv. 17. 

And again, in the first chapter to the Romans, St. Paul informs us, 
in reference to the heathen, that “that which may be known of God is 
manifest. in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisi- 
ble thirgs of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, 
being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal 
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” And in 
Romans ii. we read: “ For there is no respect of persons with God... . 
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things 
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto them- 
selves which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their 


Ch. xxiv.} CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED. 315 


conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile 
accusing, or else excusing one another.” 

In the first chapter of St. John, Christ is said to be “the true Light, 
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” And St. Peter 
declares, Acts x. 34, 35, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter 
of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh right- 
eousness, is accepted with him.” Thus we clearly see that, according te 
the Scriptures, the heathen themselves are not left destitute of a possi- 
bility of salvation. 

But the Calvinist may rejoin that, notwithstanding the Scriptures 
show forth a possible salvation for the heathen, this does not reconcile 
the facts in their case with the principles of Arminianism: for still it 
must be admitted that they are far less favored, in point of privilege, 
than Christian nations. To this we reply, that it follows, at least, from 
the possibility of salvation to the heathen, that the objection under 
consideration falls to the ground; for it rests for its support on the 
assumed position “that it does not appear agreeable to fact that there 
is an administration of the means of grace sufficient to bring all men 
to faith and repentance.” The point upon which the objection stands 
or falls, is not the equality or inequality in the means of grace, but the suffi- 
ciency or insufficigncy of those means to result in salvation. That 
such a sufficiency of the means of grace extends to the heathen, we have 
seen from the Scriptures. Hence the assumed fact. by which the Cal- 
vinist would involve the Arminian system in difficulty, is shown to be 
contrary to Scripture. 

But if we confine ourselves to the bare inequality in the distribution 
of the means of grace, Calvinism, as well as Arminianism, is compelled 
to admit this inequality, even in reference to the elect; for it is undeni- 
able that some of them are much more highly favored than others. If, 
then, a bare inequality in the distribution of the means of grace is evi- 
dence that God does not intend the salvation of the less favored, it 
would follow that, according to Calvinism, he does not-intend the salva- 
tion of some of the elect! But if Calvinism did not recognize this ine- 
quality, it could involve the Arminian in no difficulty for which he is 
not furnished with a scriptural solution. 

The Bible illustration of the subject is, that God will require of men 
according to what they have, and not according to what they have not. 
[f to the heathen only “one talent” has been disbursed, the improve: 
ment of “five” will never be required at their hands. It matters not, 
80 far as the supposed difficulty now under consideration is concerned, 
whether the means of grace extended to the heathen be explained to 


£16 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pansy 


mean the teachings of tradition, the light of nature, or the secret influ- 
ence of the Spirit; or whether all these are thought to be connected. 
Nor does it at all matter how great or how small the degree of faith, or 
what the character of the obedience essential to the salvation of a hea- 
then. These are questions which cannot affect the point in hand. That 
the heathen cannot believe the gospel in the same sense, and to the 
same extent, as Christians, may readily be admitted; but this cannot 
affect the question concerning the possibility of their salvation, unless 
it first be proved that the same is required of them, which is a_posi- 
tion alike repugnant to reason and to Scripture. We hence conclude 
that, so far as the case of the heathen is concerned, there is no evidence 
that Arminianism is inconsistent with fact. 

(2) But Dr. Hill also urges this objection from “the very unequal 
circumstances in which the inhabitants of different Christian countries 
are placed.” 

Some have the gospel in greater purity than others, and, in many 
respects, are more highly favored. Perhaps it is a sufficient reply to 
this objection to say, that it bears with equal force upon Calvinism. 
Indeed, it is a little surprising that it did not occur to the learned author 
above quoted, that this same inequality, which he here adduces as a fact 
to disprove a possible salvation for all men, would, upon the same prin- 
ciple, prove far more than he would desire: it would prove the impos- 
sibility of the salvation of some of the elect. 

If this inequality of circumstances, in reference to different Christian 
countries, and different individuals in the same country, were invariably 
found to preponderate in favor of the Calvinistically elect, there might 
seem more propriety in the objection; but such is evidently not the case. 
Will the Calvinists affirm that all the elect of God are found in those 
portions of Christendom which are favored with the gospel in its great- 
est purity? Or will they pretend that the electing grace of God always 
searches out the most highly privileged individuals in the same com- 
munity? Surely not. It is admitted that while many in the most 
highly favored countries, and of the most highly favored individuals, 
in point of external privilege, live and die reprobate sinners, there are 
to be found in the darkest corners of Christendom, and ameng the least 
distinguished individuals in point of external privilege, some of the 
faithful elect children of God. 

If, then, this inferiority in point of privilege, which applies to 
some of the elect when compared with thei more highly distin 
guished brethren, argues nothing against the possibility of the salva- 
tion of all the elect, by what mode of reasoning is it that a similar 


Uh. xxiv.} CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED, 3 


inequality amongst mankind, or Christian nations in general, is appealed 
to as a fact inconsistent with a possibility of salvation for all men? 
That the inequality appealed to by Dr. Hill is precisely the same when 
applied to the elect people of God as when applied to mankind in gen- 
eral, is so obvious a truth that it is astonishing that a discerning mind 
should glance at the subject without perceiving it; and, when perceived, 
it is still more astonishing that this inequality of circumstances should 
be cited as one of the peculiar difficulties of Arminianism. 

(8) Dr. Hill next argues that Arminianism is irreconcilable 
with the fact, “that amongst those to whom the gospel is preached, 
and in whose circumstances there is not that kind of diversity 
which can account for the difference, some believe, and some do not 
believe.” | 

This diversity, Calvinists infer, results entirely from “an inward dis- 
criminating grace.” But this we view as a gratuitous assumption, not 
countenanced by Scripture; while the Arminian method of accounting 
for the faith of some, and the unbelief of others, by reference to their 
own free agency, and making the unbelief of the one result entirely 
from the willful rejection of a sufficient degree of grace to result in 
saving faith, presents a solution of the difficulty at once satisfactory, 
and consistent with the general tenor of the gospel. 

2. Arminianism is said to be contrary to grace. 

Dr. Hill’s words are: “The second difficulty under which the Armin. 
ian system labors is this: that while in words it ascribes all to the grace 
of God, it does in effect resolve our salvation into something independ- 
ent of that grace.” 

From the days of Calvin to the present time, the term grace has been 
pronounced with a peculiar emphasis, and dwelt upon as a hobby, by 
those who have borne the name of Calvinists. They have designated 
their own peculiar views of predestination, election, divine sovereignty, 
etc., by the imposing title of “doctrines of grace;” and all who have 
differed from them on this subject have been characterized, by them at 
least, as enemies of salvation by grace, and abettors of salvation by 
works. But that the “doctrines of grace,” scripturally understoul, be- 
long peculiarly to Calvinism, is a position which Arminians have always 
denied, while they have disavowed most strenuously the doctrine of sai- 
vation by works. Indeed, none who acknowledge the Bible as their 
standard can deny the position, that salvation is of grace, and not of 
works. The important point is, to ascertain the Bible import of the 
doctrines of grace, and to determine the sense in which salvation is not 
of works, but of grace. 


318 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P iB. 8. 


If the system of Arminianism really involve the inconsistency 
imputed to it in the above-named objection, it cannot be true. The 
objection represents that, “while in words it ascribes all to the grace 
of God, it does in effect resolve our salvation into something independ- 
ent of that grace.” Now it is clear that our salvation cannot be all 
ascribed to grace, and at the same time, and in the same sense, be all 
ascribed to, or “resolved into, something independent of that grace,” 
without a manifest contradiction. 

If it be meant that Arminianism plainly contradicts itself, by repre- 
senting salvation to be, at the same time and in the same sense, in words, 
of grace, and in effect, of something else, it should be shown in what 
sense it is represented to be of grace, and that, in the same sense, it is 
represented to be of something else; and then the inconsistency would 
be fairly proved upon the system itself; but this Dr. Hill has not 
attempted to do. We are therefore induced to believe that we are not 
to infer from the objection, that one part of Arminianism is inconsistent 
with another part of the same system, but only that it is inconsistent 
with Calvinism. Unless the premises in the objection, as stated by Dr. 
Hill, are utterly false and good for nothing, we must understand the 
language to imply, that while Arminianism ascribes salvation to grace, 
in the Arminian acceptation of the term, in the Calvinistic sense, it 
ascribes it to something else. Then the only controversy will be, whether 
the Calvinistic or the Arminian view of the sense in which salvation is 
of grace, is in accordance with the Scriptures. 

That salvation is of grace, in the sense in which that term may be 
explained by Calvinists, is perhaps more than Arminians can admit, 
either in words or in effect. For if by salvation of grace, Calvinists 
understand that faith and obedience have no connection whatever with 
salvation, either as conditions or otherwise, this view of salvation by 
grace must be rejected by Arminians, as directly contradictory to the 
Scriptures. And this, we are persuaded, is the sense in which salvatior 
by grace is understood, when it is said that the Arminian system does, 
in effect, deny it. If the Scriptures are true, salvation cannot be of grace, 
in such sense as to be entirely irrespective of repentance and faith, and 
to supersede the necessity of good works. 

The plain difference between Calvinism and Arminianism, on this 
subject, is this: Calvinists cannot see how salvation can be entirely of 
grace, if it have any respect to faith, or any thing else, as a condition; 
whereas Arminians, while they understand that “ repentance toward God, 
and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,” are indispensable conditions 
of salvation with all to whom the gospel is addressed, understand, at 


Ch.xxig.) CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED. 319 


the same time, that salvation itself is entirely, from beginning to end, a 
work of Ged through grace. 

If it still be insisted that salvation cannot be ascribed to grace, if it 
be suspended upon a condition, then the charge of inconsistency or 
heterodoxy must be made upon the Bible itself; for nothing can be 
plainer than that God has promised to save the believer upon the con- 
dition of faith, and threatened to punish the unbeliever in consequence 
of his unbelief and voluntary rejection of the gospel. Notwithstanding 
salvation is thus suspended upon conditions, and, in a certain sense, 
man, by his own agency, must determine his eternal destiny, yet it may 
easily be shown that salvation itself is all the work of God through 
grace, 

(1) Man is by nature utterly helpless, incapable of any good what- 
ever, only as he is visited and strengthened by divine grace. 

(2) It is attributable to grace alone that a plan of mercy has been 
devised and proposed to man. 

(3) Nothing that man can do can avail any thing toward purchasing 
salvation by merit; for “when we have done all that we can do, we are 
unprofitable servants.” 

(4) The work of salvation, in all its stages, can be performed, either 
in whole or in part, by none but God; and this is entirely a work of 
grace, for none can claim it at the hand of God as a matter of right, 
and it is of his mere grace that’God has promised to save the sinner, 
according to the plan of his own devising. 

This subject may be illustrated by a reference to the case of the man 
with the “withered hand.” He had no strength to lift his hand, yet, in 
his effort to obey the command, strength was imparted. Now, none can 
certainly say that, if he had refused to obey the command, his hand 
would have been restored, and yet how absurd would it have been 
for him to boast that his cure was of himself, merely becanse the 
Saviour saw proper to effect the work in a certain way, and the man 
received the benefit in accordance with that plan! Even so, if God 
see proper to save one man and to damn another, under the dispen- 
sation of his gospel, it will be because the one accepted and the other 
rejected the gospel message; and still the work of salvation will be a 
work of God through grace. Thus we think it clear that there is no 
just ground to impugn the Arminian system as being inconsistent with 
the doctrines of grace. 

3. The last difficulty alleged against the Arminian system is, “that i 
proceeds upon the supposition of a failure of the purpose of the Almighty,” 
which is irreconcilable with the dine soverergnty. 


320 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pao B eS 


That God is an independent sovereign, and governs the material and 
moral universe according to his will, is a truth so fully developed in 
Scripture, and so conformable to our best conceptions of the divine 
character, that no system of divinity which denies it can be admitted 
as true. Calvinists have generally represented Arminians as denying 
the divine sovereignty; but Arminians, so far from acknowledging that 
they deny this doctrine, have ever contended that their system recog- 
nizes it in a more scriptural and consistent acceptation than the Calvin- 
istic theory admits. That Arminianism is inconsistent with the Calvin- 
istic presentation of that doctrine, will not be denied; but the question 
is, Can the Arminian system be reconciled with the correct and scrip- 
tural view of the subject? We think it can. 

The point in reference to which Dr. Hill alleges that Arminianism 
is inconsistent with the sovereignty of God, is that, according to the 
Arminian system, the will of God is absolutely defeated; for in that 
system it is declared that God wills the salvation of all men; but if, as 
Arminians admit, all men are not saved, then, according to the objec- 
tion, the divine will is defeated, and the sovereign dominion of God is 
overthrown. This difficulty, which, indeed, at first view, wears a for- 
midable aspect, upon a closer examination will be seen to originate 
entirely in a misunderstanding of the import of the term wil//; or, rather, 
from the use of the term in two different senses. 

For illustration of these two acceptations of the will, the one may he 
termed the primary, or antecedent, will of God, and the other his u/timate 
will. The primary, or antecedent, will of God contemplates and recog- 
nizes the contingencies necessarily connected with the actions of free 
moral agents; but the ultimate will of God is absolute and unencum- 
bered by any conditions whatever. Thus it is the primary, or antecedent, 
will of God that all men should be saved, but it is the ultimate will of 
God that none shall be saved but those who comply with the conditions 
of salvation. 

The question will here be asked, Has then God two wills, the one 
inconsistent with the other? We reply, No: there is really but one 
will, contemplated in two different points of view; and the terms ante- 
cedent and ultimate are merely used for the convenience of describing 
two different, but perfectly consistent, aspects of the same will, under 
different circumstances. 

This may he familiarly illustrated by the analogy of parental govern- 
ment. The father prescribes a law for his children, and threatens 
chastisement to all who disobey. Now it is very clear that the affec- 
tionate father does not primarily will that any of his children should 


Ch.xxiv.} CALVINISM AND AKMINIANISM COMPARED. 321 


suffer chastisement. It is his desire that all should obey, and escape 
punishment. But some of them disobey: the will of the father is that 
they be chastised according to his threatening. This is necessary in 
order to the maintenance of his authority. But we demand, Has any 
change really taken place in the will of the father? Surely not. Is 
not his ultimate will, which orders the punishment, perfectly consistent 
with his primary will, which desired not the punishment of any? Or, 
rather, is it not the same will, under a different modification ? 

The perfect consistency, or, more strictly, the identity, of the primary 
and ultin.ate will, may be clearly seen by adverting to the conditionality 
of the primary will, necessarily resulting from the principles of govern- 
ment suited to moral agents. Thus the father primarily willed that 
none of his children should be punished. This is his first desire, flow- 
ing from the benevolence of his nature. But he does not will this 
absolutely and unconditionally. He only wills it conditionally—that is, 
he wills that they should escape punishment only in a certain way—by 
obeying his law; but if they violate his law, his will is that they conse 
quently be punished. 

Let it be remembered, also, that the primary will or desire of the 
parent is not in the least weakened by the strength of his apprehension 
that some of his children will, in the abuse of their agency, disobey, 
and incur the penalty. Indeed, if the mind of the father should fix 
upon one more refractory than the rest, his affection would naturally 
desire more ardently the obedience, and consequent escape, of that 
child. Now it must be confessed that the affection of an earthly 
parent, though exceedingly ardent, is but a faint representation of the 
extent of the love and compassion of God for all his intelligent crea- 
tures. But yet the illustration thus presented may aptly serve the 
purpose for which we have used it. 

The primary will of God is that all men should be saved. This he 
has most solemnly declared, and the benevolence of his holy nature 
requires it. But he does not thus will absolutely and unconditionally. 
He only wills it according to certain conditions, and in consistency with 
the plan of his own devising. He wills their salvation, not as stocks or 
stones, but as moral agents. He wills their salvation through the use of 
the prescribed means; but if, in the abuse of their agency, they reject 
the gospel, his ultimate will is that they perish for their sins, This is 
essential to the maintenance of his moral government over his creatures. 

Thus we may clearly see how the Almighty can, according to the 
system of Arminianism, primarily will the salvation of all men, and 
through the atonement of Christ render it attainable, and yet maintain 

21 


822 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.8 


his absolute sovereignty over the moral universe. But it is not the 
sovereignty of an arbitrary tyrant, nor yet such a sovereignty as that 
by which he rules the material universe, according to principles of 
absolute and fatal necessity, but the sovereignty of a righteous and 
benevolent Governor of moral and intelligent agents, according to holy 
and gracious principles. If this be the sovereignty for which Dr. Hill 
and the Calvinists contend, they can find nothing in the system of Ar 
minianism inconsistent therewith; but a sovereignty variant from this 
would not only be inconsistent with Arminianism, but it would be repug- 
nant to Scripture, and derogatory to the divine character, 

We have now briefly considered the three leading difficulties under 
which, according to Calvinists, the Arminian system labors; and we 
think we have shown that they are all susceptible of a rational and 
satisfactory solution. 

II. We shall now briefly sketch some of the principal, and, as we 
think, unanswerable objections to the Calvinistic system. 

That we may more clearly perceive the force of these objections, it 
will be necessary to keep still in view the great distinguishing principle 
in the Calvinistic system, viz.: That salvation is not made possible to 
all mankind ; and that this impossibility depends not upon the divine fore- 
sight of the conduct of men, but upon the eternal decree and inscrutable 
unll of God. 

That this is a correct presentation of the Calvinistic scheme, has 
been abundantly shown in the preceding chapters. But we think that, 
notwithstanding the number of learned and pious divines who have 
exerted their utmost ability and zeal in the support of the above system, 
thsy have never succeeded in extricating it from the following weighty 
objections: 

1. It is contrary to the prima facie evidence and general tenor of Scrip- 
ture. This has been shown— 

(1) By appealing to those numerous and plain declarations of Scrip- 
ture, in which, in speaking of the atonement, or of the death of Christ, 
terms of the widest possible import are used—such as all, all the world 
all mankind, the whole world, ete. 

(2) By appealing to those passages which place in direct contrast 
Adam, and the extent of the effects of his fall, with Christ, and the 
extent of the effects of his death. 

(3) By appealing to those passages which teach that Christ died for 
such as do, or may, perish. ; 

(4) By referring to those plain declarations which au thorize the preach- 
ing of the gospel to all men, and require all men to repent end believe, 


Cu. xxiv.) CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISK COMPARED. 328 


(5) By appealing to those passages which unreservedly offer salva- 
tion to all men, and declare that men’s failure to obtain it is their own 
fault. 

(6) By referring to those passages which teach the possibility of final 
apostasy, and warn Christians of their danger of it. 

This is only an index of the classes of texts with which the Scrip- 
tures are replete upon this subject. Considering their great number, 
and plain and pointed character, it is clear that they present a prima 
facie evidence in opposition to Calvinism little less than irresistible to 
the unsophisticated mind. With such a mass of plain Scripture, the 
most natural and common-sense interpretation of which is against them, 
Calvinists have ever been trammeled, and have based the defense of 
their system mostly on philosophic speculation and abstract theoretic 
reasoning. 

2. The Calvinistic system is irreconcilable with the character of man as 
a free moral agent. 

This characteristic of our nature has been already considered. At 
present, we assume it as one among the most plain and undeniable 
truths of philosophy and religion. Calvinists have generally admitted 
that to reconcile their views of the eternal and absolute decrees of elec- 
tion and reprobation with the free agency of man, is a task too difficult 
for their finite powers. Hence they have seldom attempted it. Their 
course on this subject has not been uniform. While some have boldlv 
repudiated the doctrine of man’s free agency, and therein battled agains 
common sense itself, the greater portion have contended that the doc 
trines of the eternal and unconditional decrees, and of man’s free 
agency, though to human comprehension irreconcilable, are neverthe- 
less both true; and they have referred the solution of the difficulty to 
the revelations of eternity! 

If, indeed, the difficulty now before us belonged legitimately to that 
class of Bible truths which are too profound for human wisdom to 
fathom, a reference to the developments of eternity would certainly be 
an appropriate disposition of the subject. But when we consider the 
true character of the difficulty in question, it may well be doubted 
whether such a reference has any thing to justify or recommend it, 
except that it is an easy method of dismissing a troublesome difficulty. 
What would we say of the individual who would pretend to believe 
that light and darkness are both the same, and refer to eternity for their 
reconciliation? Or what would we think of him who should profess to 
believe in both the following propositions, viz., 1. Man is accountable 
to God: 2. Man is not accountable to God; or in any two positious 


824 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pip Bis 


plainly contradictory to each other, and refer tc the revelations of 
eternity for their reconciliation? We think very few would tamely 
accede to an opponent the right to dispose of such difficulties by that 
summary and easy process. And with just as little propriety can the 
Calvinist refer to eternity for the reconciliation of his system with the 
free agency of man. 

The doctrines of the eternal and absolute decrees of Calvinism, and 
the free agency of man, are plainly and directly contradictory ; and 
although their reconciliation is a tasg too difficult for finite minds, yet 
a limited capacity may clearly perceive that, in their very nature, they 
are absolutely irreconcilable. Nothing can be plainer than that, if all 
the actions of men are absolutely and unconditionally decreed from all 
eternity, it is impossible for man to act otherwise than he does, And 
if man is necessarily determined to act precisely as he does, he cannot 
be free to act differently; and if so, he cannot be a free agent. It will 
avail nothing to say that man may act according to his own will, or 
inclination; for if the will be necessarily determined, man can be no 
more free, though he may act in accordance with that necessary deter- 
mination, than a falling stone, which moves in accordance with the 
necessary laws of gravity. As the doctrine of free agency has been 
fully discussed in former chapters, we will now dismiss this subject by 
the single remark, that when two propositions directly antagonistic to 
each other can be harmonized, then, and not till then, may Calvinism 
and man’s free agency be reconciled. 

3. The Calvinistic system is inconsistent with the love, or benevolence, of 
God. 

“God is love.” “ He is loving to every man; and his tender mercies 
are over all his works.” Tt is the nature of the feeling of love to seek 
the happiness of the object beloved; and if God loves all men, as the 
Scriptures declare, he will, in his administration toward them, seek to 
promote their happiness, as far as it can be done consistently with his 
own perfections and with the character of man. But if one part of 
mankind have been “passed by” in the covenant of redemption, and 
doomed to inevitable destruction, when another portion, equally unde 
serving, have been selected as the favorites of Heaven, and set apart to 
eternal happiness, and this distinction, as Calvinists say, is founded 
upon the sovereign will of God alone, no reason can he assigned for 
the salvation of the elect, that did not equally exist in reference to the 
reprobate, unless it be that God willed arbitrarily the salvation of the 
former, but did not will the salvation of the Matter, In willing the sal- 
vation of the elect, he necessarily willed their happiness, and in willing 


Ch.xxiv.]) CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED. B25 


the damnation of the reprobate, he necessarily willed their misery. 
Hence it follows that he loved the former, but did not love the latter; 
and the position that “God is loving to every man,” must be discarded, 
or Calvinism must be renounced. Thus it is manifest that the Calvin- 
istic system is irreconcilable with the love, or benevolence, of God. 

4. The Calvinistic scheme is inconsistent with the justice of God. 

No just government can punish an individual for doing what he 
never had the power to avoid. Such conduct would be universally exe- 
crated as the basest of tyranny. But, according to Calvinism, it is 
impossible for any man to act differently from what he does. The 
reprobate never had it in their power to embrace the gospel, or to avoid 
sinning; therefore, if they are punished for the rejection of the gospel 
and the commission of sin, they are punished for doing what they never 
had the power to avoid; and such punishment is not in accordance with 
justice, but is an infliction of tyranny. Hence it is clear that Calvin- 
ism is irreconcilable with the justice of God. 

5. The Calvinistic scheme is irreconcilable with the sincerity of God. 

To see this, it is only necessary to contemplate the general invitations, 
commands, and exhortations of the gospel. With what earnestness is 
it proclaimed, “Ho! every one that. thirsteth, come ye to the waters.” 
“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his 
thoughts.” “Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord, I have no 
pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his 
way and live: turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die, O house of 
Israel ?” 

In reference to the many such invitations and ardent entreaties as are 
to be found in the Scriptures, it may well be inquired, if Calvinism be 
true, how can they be the language of sincerity? Can God in sincerity 
command those to obey who have no more the power to obey than to 
inake a world? Can he in sincerity offer salvation to those for whom 
he has never provided it? Can he entreat to “come unto him and be 
saved” those whom he has never designed to save, and whose salvation 
he knows to be absolutely impossible; and that through no fault of 
theirs, but by his own eternal decree, according to his sovereign will? 

Calvinists endeavor, it is true, to reconcile these commands, entreaties, 
etc., which are addressed alike to all men, with the sincerity of God, by 
alleging that, if the reprobate have no power to come to Christ and be 
saved, this results only from a moral inability—they are unwilling them- 
selves. But this cannot alter the case in the least, when it is remem- 
bered that, according to Calvinism, this “moral inability” can only be_ 
removed by the influence of that grace which God has determined te 


326 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {Pain Bas 


withhold. The numerous subtilties by which Calvinists have endeavored 
to reconcile their system with the sincerity of God, have made no advance 
toward removing the difficulty. It may be shifted from one ground to 
another, but by no artifice can we reconcile with sincerity tue offer of 
salvation to all men, if it be only possible to a few. 

6. The Calvinistic system tends to destroy the distinction between virtue 
and vice, and to render man an improper subject for future judgment, and 
for reward or punishment. 

Virtue or vice can only exist in man, as he is supposed to have the 
power to do right or wrong, according to his own determination, If, 
according to the theory of Calvinism, all the actions of men are deter- 
mined by an absolute and eternal decree of God, so that the virtuous 
man cannot but be virtuous, and the vicious man cannot but be vicious, 
virtue and vice, so far as they determine the moral character of men, must 
be the same. They are both in accordance with, and result from, the 
will of the Divine Sovereign; and flow as impulsively from the eternal 
decree, which determines the means and the end, as the effect does from 
the cause. And it necessarily follows that virtue and vice are essen- 
tially the same, and no man can be a proper subject of praise or blame. 

Again: we look at the solemn process of the general judgment; we 
see all men assembled at the bar of God, and called to account for all 
their actions here; and then see the reward of eternal life bestowed 
upon the righteous, and eternal punishment inflicted on the wicked; 
and we ask the question, why, according to Calvinism, are men called 
to account, and rewarded or punished for their actions? If all things 
were unalterably fixed by the eternal decrees, the judgment process is 
only an empty show, and no man can be a proper subject either of 
reward or punishment. For what, we ask, in view of the Calvinistic 
theory, can the wicked be punished? If it be said, for their sins, we 
ask, had they the power to avoid them? If it be said, for their unbelief, 
we ask, in whom were they required to believe? In a Saviour who 
never designed, or came, to save them? Surely it must be evident that 
if salvation never was possible for the reprobate, by no process of rea- 
soning can it be shown to be proper to punish them for their failure to 
attain unto it. We think, therefore, that it is impossible to reconcile 
the Calvinistic system with the real distinction between virtue and vice, 
and with the doctrine of future judgment and rewards and punishments. 

We have now noticed some of the leading difficulties with which the 
eystems of Calvinism and Arminianism have been thought respectively 
to be encumbered ; and, in conclusion, we would say that, notwithstand- 
ing, according to our showing, Calvinism labors under some very serians 


Ch xxiv.) CALVINISM AND ARMINIANISM COMPARED. 327 


difficulties, and leads to some revolting consequences, it likewise em 
bodies much evangelical truth; and the most objectionable consequences 
which have been deduced from the system have not been fairly acknowl- 
edged by all its advocates; yet, as we think they necessarily follow, as 
logical conclusions, it is but fair that they be plainly presented. We 
now close our discussion of the extent of the atonement, and present, 
as the substance of what we have endeavored to establish, the leading 
position with which we set out—* that the atonement so eatends to all men 
as to render salvation possible for them.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXIV. 
Question 1. What three leading objec-| 7. What is the third, and how is it sus. 


tions have been urged by Calvin- tained? 

ists against Arminianism? 8. What is the fourth, and how is it 
2. What is the substance of the answer sustained ? 

to the first? 9. What is the fifth, and how is it eus- 
3. The second? tained? 
4. The third? 10. What is the sixth, and how is it 
5. What is the first objection to Calvin- sustained ? 

ism, and how is it sustained? 11. What is the substance of woat has 
§. What is the second, and how is it been established in reference ta 


susteir ed? the extent of the atonement? 


PART 1.—DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 


BOOK IV.—THE REMEDIAL SCHEME—ITS BENEFITS 


CHAPTER XXV. 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 


Havina considered, in the preceding chapters, the great and leading 
doctrines of theology, so far as they relate more directly to the character 
of the Divine Being, the history of the creation, and of the fall of man, 
and of the dreadful consequences of that fall, together with the glorious 
provision made for his recovery in the atonement of Christ, we now 
enter upon the examination of some of those doctrines of revelation in 
which the benefits of redemption are more directly connected with man, 
as a fallen, but accountable, moral agent. As a subject appropriate to 
be discussed at this stage of our general investigation, we propose the 
influence of the Holy Spirit. 

The doctrine of divine influence is clearly revealed in the sacred 
Scriptures, and stands connected with every dispensation and every 
leading topic of religion. Against this great Bible truth infidelity has 
hurled her keenest shafts of ridicule, and manifested a most irrecon- 
cilable enmity. It is a subject upon which there has been a diversity 
of sentiment among the confessedly orthodox, while pseudo-Christians 
have exercised their ingenuity to explain it away. Yet we think it will 
appear in the sequel, that a renunciation of this doctrine is a renuncia- 
tion of all vital religion, and that any modification or abatement of its 
full scriptural import is a proportionate surrender of the essentials of 
godliness. 

The importance of this doctrine, considered in its connection with the 
scheme of human salvation, as well as the great extent of controversy 


which it has elicited in almost every age of the Church, should deeply 
: “229° 


830 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 4 


impress our minds with the necessity of the most implicit and devout 
reliance on the teachings of inspiration, that we may, upon this radical 
doctrine, be delivered from all dangerous error, and guided into the knowl- 
edge of all essential truth. The influence of the Holy Spirit is a doc- 
trine so repeatedly and explicitly recognized in the Bible, that a formal 
renunciation of it would amount to a rejection of revelation. Hence 
all who have acknowledged the truth of the Scriptures have admitted. 
under some modification, the doctrine now proposed for discussion. But 
when the subject is closely scrutinized, and critical inquiry made con- 
cerning what is understood by the influence of the Spirit, it is manifest 
that the phrase is far from being of the same import in the lips of all 
who use it. Hence it is very important that we inquire carefully con- 
cerning the sense in which this doctrine is presented in Scripture. 

I. THE DOCTRINE DEFINED. 

1. The Scriptures were inspired and confirmed by the miraculous agency 
of the Holy Spirit. 

On this point, we refer to the following passages of the holy word :— 
2 Pet. i. 21: “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of 
man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 
Acts xxviii. 25: “Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet 
unto our fathers.” Acts i. 16: “This Scripture must needs have been 
fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before 
concerning Judas.” So far as the inspiration of the prophets is con- 
cerned, the above texts are conclusive. 

In reference to the inspiration of the apostles, the following passages 
may be consulted:—Matt. x. 19, 20: “ When they deliver you up, take 
no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that 
same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit 
of your Father which speaketh in you.” John xiv. 26: “But the Com- 
forter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, 
he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, 
whatsoever I have said unto you.” 1 Cor. ii. 10, 12, 18: “ But God hath 
revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, 
yea, the deep things of God.” “ Now we have not received the Spirit 
of the world, but th Spirit which is of God; that we might know the 
things that are freely given to us of God. Which things we also speak, 
not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy 
Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” 

From the foregoing passages, it is evident that the apostles were 
immediately inspired, by the Holy Ghost, to make known the truths of 
the gospel as recorded in the New Testament. To qualify them for the 


Ch xrv.] THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 35) 


great work assigned them, of publishing, and confirming by “signs and 
wonders, and divers miracles,” the truths of the gospel, they were super- 
naturally endued with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. Thus 
commissioned and prepared, they went forth, and spoke, “as the Spirit 
gave them utterance,” the wonderful things of God, and were enabled 
to heal the sick, raise the dead, and perform many notable miracles, by 
the power of the Holy Ghost, and “in the name of Jesus of Nazareth,” 

2. The Scriptures teach, that the Holy Spirit operates on the minds and 
hearts of men, in convicting, regenerating, and converting the sinner, and 
ix comforting, guiding, and sanctifying the Christian. 

Perhaps all professed Christians will admit the truth of this propo- 
sition; but all do not construe it in the same way. Therefore much 
care is requisite that we may perceive clearly the sense in which this 
subject is understood by different persons. 

(1) The first theory that we shall notice upon this subject is that 
which denies the personality of the Holy Spirit altogether, and explains the 
phrase to imply nothing but the manifestation of a divine attribute. 

The abettors of this theory reject the doctrine of the Trinity; and 
when they speak of the Holy Spirit, they do not mean a personal intel- 
ligence, but merely the manifestation or exercise of some of the divine 
attributes. Thus, by the indwelling of the Spirit in the heart of the 
Christian, they mean no more than this: that a disposition or quality 
somewhat resembling the divine attributes exists in the heart of the 
believer. Their view may be fairly illustrated by reference to a common 
figure of speech, by which, when an individual is possessed in an 
eminent degree of any quality for which another has been peculiarly 
celebrated, he is not only said to resemble him, but to possess his spirit. 
Thus the brave are said to possess the spirit of Cesar; the cruel, the 
spirit of Herod or of Nero; while the patient, faithful, affectionate, or 
zealous Christian, is said to possess the spirit of Job, of Abraham, of 
John, or of Paul. 

In the same sense, say the advocates of this theory, he who is meek, 
humble, harmless, compassionate, and benevolent, is said to possess “the 
Spirit of Christ”—that is, he possesses qualities resembling those which 
shone so illustriously in the character of our Lord. So, when the Spirit 
of God is said to “dwell in the hearts” of Christians, it is merely to be 
understood that they partake, to a limited extent, of that disposition 
of love, goodness, holiness, ete., which, in infinite perfection, belongs 
to the divine character. Or, when the Christian is said to be influ- 
enced, operated upon, or “led by the Spirit of God,” we are taught 
that he is merely actuated, in a limited degree, by those principles 


832 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i, B. 4 


of. righteousness and holiness which pertain to the perfections of the 
Godhead. 

In reference to this theory, we remark, that it appears to us to be 
nothing better than infidelity in disguise. While it acknowledges, in 
words, the doctrine of divine influence, it in reality denies it; and while 
it professedly bows to the majesty of inspiration, it in reality contradicts, 
or perverts, the plainest declarations of the Bible. So far from this theory 
acknowledging the real influence of the Holy Spirit, it denies his real 
existence; and would represent all that is said of the important offices, 
influences, and personal acts of the Holy Ghost—all that is said of his 
dwelling in the Father and in the Son—of his proceeding from them— 
of his abiding with, instructing, comforting, leading, and sanctifying the 
Christian, as mere rhetorical figures, by which actions, never really per- 
formed, are attributed to a being having only an imaginary existence. 

As this theory is based upon the denial of the personality of the 
HToly Ghost, and as that notion has, we trust, been clearly refuted in a 
former chapter, we think it needless to dwell upon this point. Suffice 
it to say that, when a person is now said to be moved by the spirit of 
Nero, it is not implied that the ghost of that departed tyrant has lite- 
rally entered the heart of the man, and exercises a real agency in 
instigating his cruel actions: when John the Baptist was said to have 
come in the “spirit and power of Elijah,” we do not understand that 
there was a literal transmigration of spirit from the one to the other; it 
is most palpable that no real influence of the spirit of Nero or of Elijah 
is supposed in the above cases. And hence, according to this theory, 
the real influence of the Holy Spirit is positively discarded. And if 
the existence of the agent and his influence are both imaginary, it nec- 
essarily follows that the effect attributed to that influence, in convicting, 
regenerating, comforting, and sanctifying the soul, must also be imagi- 
nary. Thus it appears that this theory, in explaining away the person- 
ality snd operations of the Holy Spirit, has really denied the actual 
existence of the change attributed to that agency, and explained experi- 
mental and practical godliness out of the world! 

(2) Asecond theory upon this subject is that which contends that all 
the influence of the Holy Spirit, since the age of miracles, is mediate and 
indirect through the written word. 

This, and the preceding view, are properly modifications of the same 
theory. The only distinction in the sentiments of the advocates of 
these theories is, that some deny, while others admit, the personality of 
the Holy Spirit; but they all agree in rejecting any direct divine influ- 
ence on the hearts of men, and in confining the operation of the Spirit 


Ch. xxv.] THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 633 


to the medium of the written word. We think nothing is needed but 
a clear conception of the nature of this theory, in order to see that it 
amounts to a real denial of all divine influence, in the proper sense 
of the term. We will endeavor to ascertain the real import of this 
theory. 

There is some ambiguity in the term medium, when it is said that 
“the Spirit operates through the medium of the written word? A 
medium may either be instrumental and passive, or efficient and active. 
In the former case, that which operates through the medium is a real 
a sent, and performs a real operation; in the latter case, that which 
operates through the medium is no agent in the case, and performs no 
real operation, but is only said to operate by a figure of speech. 

For an illustration of these two acceptations of the term medium, we 
would suppose a soldier to slay his enemy with his sword, and then to 
command his servant, and he buries the dead man. In this case, there 
are two different acts which may be properly attributed to the soldier— 
the slaying of the enemy, and his burial; each act is performed through 
a different medium—the sword is the medium through which the man 
is slain, but the servant is the medium through which he is buried. In 
the case of the sword, the medium is merely instrumental and passive; 
it only moves as it is wielded by the hand of the soldier, who is the 
real agent, and performs the real operation. In the case of the servant, 
the medium is an efficient and active one; it moves and acts of itself, 
independent of any direct assistance from the soldier; and although, in 
an accommodated or figurative sense, the burial of the man may be 
attributed to the soldier, it is obvious that the real agent is the servant; 
and the operation of burial is properly not performed by the soldier, 
but by his servant. Now, if it be understood that the “written word” 
is the medium through which the Holy Spirit operates, in the same 
sense in which the sword is the medium through which the soldier oper- 
ates to the destruction of his foe, it is clear that. there must be a real 
operation or exercise of the divine influence at the time. And such is, 
unquestionably, the scriptural view; but it is not the sense in which the 
abettors of this theory understand the subject. They admit no direet 
exertion of the divine influence at the time. They understand the word 
to be an efficient and active medium, acting as an agent in producing 
conviction, conversion, sanctification, etc., without any immediate exer- 
cise of divine influence at the time. 

Thesense in which they also understand the subject may be illustrated 
by reference to the influence of uninspired writings—such, for instance, as 
the writings of Baxter, or of Fletcher, which still exert an influence on 


334 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.4 


the minds of thousands who read them, long after the authors have 
become silent in death. Here, in an accommodated sense, Baxter and 
Fletcher are still said to be operating through their writings on the 
minds of men; but is it not clear that all the real operation performed 
by them ceased when they “ceased at once to work and live?” They 
put forth no direct energy at any subsequent time. 

Just so, the advocates of this theory tell us, the Spirit of God 
inspired the Scriptures—wrought miracles for the establishment of the 
gospel—but that the direct influence of the Holy Ghost then ceased; 
and that the Spirit only operates through the word in the same sense in 
which the spirit of Baxter operates through the volume entitled, “ The 
Saint’s Rest.” Now we think it must be clear that this is no real oper- 
ation of the Holy Spirit at all. It is only understood in such sense as 
that in which a master workman may be said to be the builder of a 
house which was reared by his under-workmen, when he, perhaps, was 
hundreds of miles distant from the spot; or in such sense as an unin- 
spired author, long since dead, may be said to operate through his 
writings, which he produced while living; or as the ingenious artisan 
may be said to operate through the machinery which he formed, while 
it may continue to move after it has passed from his hand. In such, 
and only such, sense as this, we are told, the Spirit of God now operates 
on the minds and hearts of men. Against this theory we enter our 
solemn protest. 

(3) The third theory upon this subject is that which we believe to be 
the true scriptural view of the doctrine. It admits the indirect influence 
of the Spirit through the “written word,” as contended for in the 
scheme above explained; and maintains that there is likewise a direct 
and immediate divine influence, not only accompanying the written word, 
but also operating through the divine providence and all the various means 
of grace. 

That the real point of controversy on this subject may be clearly 
seen, we remark— 

1. That the advocates of this last theory freely admit that the Holy 
Spirit does operate on the minds and hearts of men through the medium 
of the written word—they do not deny that the arguments and motives 
of the gospel are designed as means, or instrumentalities, leading to 
salvation. 

2. It is admitted, farther, that the direct influence of the Spirit con- 
tended for is not designed to reveal new truths, but merely to arouse, 
quicken, or renew, the unregenerate heart; or to impress, apply, or give, 
efficiency to truths already revealed, and thus to exert an efficient 


Ch. xrv.] THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. dc 


agency in the great work of convicting, regenerating, and converting 
sinners, and illuminating, comforting, and sanctifying believers. 

3. It is admitted also, that the word of truth is the ordinary instru- 
mentality by which the Spirit operates on those to whom the gospel ia 
addressed. 

Therefore the real point of dispute is, whether there is any direct 
influence of the Spirit, distinct from the indirect or mediate influence 
through the truths, arguments, and motives of the gospel. 

II. THz pocrrine PRovep. That there is a direct intluence of the 
Spirit, as contended for by the advocates of this theory, we will now 
proceed to show. 

1. The Scriptures in numerous places speak of a divine influence 
being exercised over the minds of persons, which, from the circum- 
stances of the case, must have been distinct from arguments and 
motives presented in words to the eye or the ear. . 

Proy. xxi. 1: “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord: as the 
rivers of water, he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Ezra vi. 22: 
“For the Lord had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king 
of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the 
house of God, the God of Israel.” In these passages the Lord is repre- 
sented as operating on the hearts of kings, when, according to the con- 
text, the influence must have been direct and distinct from written or 
spoken language. 

Luke xxiv. 45: “Then opened he their understanding, that they might 
understand the Scriptures.” Acts xvi. 14: “Whose heart the Lord 
opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.” 
Here the understanding and the heart are said to be opened by the 
Lord—not by the Scriptures, but that they “might understand the Scrip- 
tures,” and “attend unto the things which were spoken.” Consequently 
there must have been a divine influence, distinct from the mere word 
uttered or heard. 

2. Prayer is presented in Scripture as efficacious in securing the 
influence of the Spirit. 

Ps. cxix. 18: “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous 
things out of thy law.” Ps. li. 10: “Create in me a clean heart, O 
God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Rom. x. 1: “Brethren, my 
heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved.” 
From these scriptures it is clear that both the prophet and the 
apostle offered prayer to God as though they expected a direct answer 
to their petitions. Now, upon the supposition that there is no influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit except through the word, it is wholly incon- 


836 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. >« [PRBS 


ceivable how prayer can be of any avail in securing the blessings 
desired. 

Again, in Luke xi. 13, we read: “If ye then, being evil, know how to 
give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly 
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him.” Here is a general 
promise, restricted to no class of persons, or age, of the world. Upon 
the hypothesis that there is no direct influence of the Spirit, how can 
such language be consistently understood? Are we to expect the writ- 
ten word to be miraculously bestowed in answer to prayer? No one, 
surely, can so understand this promise; and yet, if we deny the direct 
influence of the Spirit, how else can it be interpreted? 

3. Again: if the Spirit of God operates only through the word, all 
idiots, infants, and pagans, who die without hearing that word, must 
perish everlastingly. We proved in a former chapter that all mankind 
are by nature totally depraved, and that a radical change of heart is 
essential to their admission into heaven. If, then, this change can only 
be effected through the medium of the word, or truth, of God, those 
who are incapable of hearing that word never can realize the change, 
and consequently must be doomed to inevitable destruction. From 
this consequence of the doctrine we oppose, there is no possible 
escape. 

III. Opsecrions ANsweRED. We will now notice some objections 
which have been urged against the direct influence of the Spirit for 
which we have contended: 

1. It has been argued that, from the constitution of the human mind, 
it is impossible that it can be influenced except by words, arguments, 
or motives, which can only be communicated in language addressed te 
the eye or the ear. 

To this objection we reply, that the premises here assumed are not 
true. It cannot be proved that there is such a constitution of our 
nature. Indeed, it is most evident that there can be no such thing. Is 
the power of the Holy One thus to be limited by us, where he himself 
has placed no limit? As man was originally created holy, independ- 
ently of arguments, or motives, addressed to his understanding, why 
should we suppose it impossible that the same Almighty Power should 
“create him anew,” and restore him to his pristine purity, by a similar 
direct energy? 

Again: it is admitted that Satan can tempt, seduce, and influence 
the minds of men to evil, in a thousand different ways. We ask, has 
the prince of darkness a Bible—has he a written revelation, by which, 
through the eye or the ear, he addresses the human race? Or is it sc 


Uh. xxv.] THE INFLUENCE OF TIE HOLY SPIRIT. 337 


that he possesses greater power over man than God himself? Can Satan 
reach the human mind, so as to instil his deadly poison, and exert his 
soul-destroying influence, separate and distinct from a direct revelation, 
but must God himself be restricted to words, arguments, or motives? 
The position is too monstrous to be entertained. ' 

2. It is objected that if God can, and does, operate on the minds 
of men, separate and distinct from his word, then his word is rendered 
useless. ) 

To this we reply, that the objection is good for nothing, because the 
conclusion does not follow from the premises. It is what logicians call 
a non sequitur. The word of God is the ordinary instrument with those 
to whom it is addressed; but the Holy Spirit is the efficient agent by 
whom the instrument is wielded. Now, is it logical to argue that 
because the instrument cannot accomplish the appropriate work of the 
agent, therefore it can be of no use in reference to the work for which 
it is assigned? As well might we argue that because the hand cannot 
perform the office of the eye, it is therefore useless, and should be cast 
away. Because God can work, and, where means are not appropriate, 
does work without means, shall we therefore conclude that he shall be 
precluded from the use of means in all cases? 

3. It is objected that regeneration, conversion, etc., are said in Scrip- 
ture to be through, or by, the word of truth. 

To this we reply, that they are in no place said to be through, or by, 
the word alone. That the word is the ordinary instrumental cause, with 
those to whom the gospel is addressed, is admitted; but it is in no case 
the efficient cause of either regeneration or sanctification. “It is the 
Spirit which quickeneth.” We “must be born of the Spirit.” And it 
is “through sanctification of the Spirit” that we must be prepared for 
heaven. When the apostles received their grand commission to “ go 
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature,” it was 
connected with the promise, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the 
end of the world.” On this promise they relied in faith, and prayer to 
God for success. 

IV. We will now consider more particularly the direct influence of the 
Spirit in the conviction and regeneration of sinners. 

The Bible clearly teaches that, through the successive ages of the 
world, the minds of men have been quickened and illuminated by 
the agency of the Holy Spirit. It has, however, been denied by some, 
that sinners haye a right to pray or look to God for any influence of 
the Spirit, till they first believe, repent, and submit to baptism. What 
is quite singular is, that these same persons who tell us that baptized 

22 


$38 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PAs Bs 


believers are entitled to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and that 
such only are authorized to pray for the influence of the Spirit, contend 
also, most strenuously, that there is no divine influence except that 
which is mediate, through the written word. Now to us it seems mani- 
festly inconsistent, for such as deny the direct influence of the Spirit, to 
say that “the Holy Spirit dwells in all the faithful,” and is only prom- 
ised to baptized believers, and that for any others to pray for it ia 
unauthorized and preposterous. What! is it so that none but baptized 
believers cun read or hear the word of God? Or is there a veil upon 
every man’s understanding till removed by baptism, which so obscures 
his intellect, and indurates his moral faculties, that he can neither per- 
ceive the evidence nor feel the force of truth? To contend that the 
Spirit operates only through the word of truth, and then to speak of an 
indwelling influence of the Spirit as being restricted to baptized believ- 
ers, is perfectly puerile. For if a mediate influence, through the written 
word, be the only sense in which the operation of the Spirit is to be 
understood, surely it is alike accessible to all who read or hear the word, 
whether baptized or unbaptized. But we think the Scriptures them- 
selves will settle this point. 

1. The direct influence of the Spirit, by promise, extends to sinners, 

God, by the mouth of his prophet, (Joel ii. 28,) declares, “And it 
shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
flesh.” Here observe— 

(1) This influence of the Spirit is promised to sinners; for the terms 
are of the widest possible import—all flesh.” Now, to pretend that 
sinners are not included in that phrase, is not to expound the sacred 
word, but most unceremoniously to push it aside. 

(2) The influence of the Spirit was intended to convict, and lead to 
salvation; for the prophet directly adds, “Whosoever shall call on the 
name of the Lord shall be delivered.” Tt will not avail to appeal to the 
words of Peter on the day of Pentecost, to prove a restriction in the appli- 
cation of the universal phrase, “all flesh.” It is true Peter says, “ This is 
that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel”—but does he say that the 
prophet spoke in reference to the day of Pentecost alone? Does he say 
that the words of the prophet were to have no farther fulfillment? He 
makes no such statement. Indeed, we have the most conclusive evi- 
dence that he had no such meaning. For, in the fifteenth chapter of The 
Acts, he speaks of the “gift of the Holy Ghost” having been afterward 
granted to the Gentiles, even as it had been conferred on the Jews; and 
in the eleventh chapter of The Acts, the apostle says, respecting the 
Gentiles, ‘Tle Holy Ghost fell on them as on us ot the beginning.” 


Ch. xxv.] THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 339 


Here, then, is positive proof that if the affusion of the Spirit at Pen- 
tecost was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, so was the affusion of the 
Spirit on the Gentiles. The argument of the apostle is, that the Gen- 
tiles have received the same spiritual blessing; therefore they are 
entitled to the same Church privileges—the same reasoning would 
demonstrate that, as the blessings were similar, if one was a fulfillment 
of the words of the prophet, so was the other. Hence we perceive the 
plea for restricting the application of the prophet’s words cannot be 
sustained. He uses language of universal application; the apostle has 
not attempted, nor dare we attempt, to limit the application. The words 
still stand, and will continue to be fulfilled, as long as the gospel shall 
endure. 

As an additional proof that they are intended for universal applica- 
tion, throughout the entire dispensation of the gospel, we remark, that 
St. Paul quotes, in Rom. x., a part of the same prophecy of Joel, and 
uses it as a stereotyped truth, of universal application, “ Whosoever 
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 

But suppose us to admit, for the sake of argument, that Joel’s 
prophecy had its entire fulfillment on the day of Pentecost, will it then 
appear that the influence of the Spirit was not, in that prophecy, prom- 
ised to sinners? The very reverse will be clearly apparent. To whom 
was Peter preaching on that occasion? Was it not to a congregation 
of wicked sinners, whom he directly charges with the crucifixion of the 
Lord? To this very congregation of sinners, Peter declares, “7'he 
promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, 
even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” What promise is this? 
Most evidently it at least includes the promise of the outpouring of the 
Spirit, which he had quoted from Joel. This argument cannot be 
evaded by saying that Peter only promised them the Holy Ghost on 
the condition of repentance and baptism; for it is admitted that the 
promise of the Holy Ghost as a Comforter cannot be claimed by the 
sinner, as such. Yet, that sinners had the promise of the Spirit’s 
influence, even before their repentance, in the prophecy of Joel, we 
have already proved; and that these very sinners were so affected by 
the operation of the Spirit as to be convicted of sin, and made to cry 
out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” the context most plainly 
evinces. 

Again, in the sixteenth chapter of John, our Saviour declares that 
when the Comforter is come, “he will reprove the world of sin, and of 
righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believed not on 
we,” etc. On this passage we remark that our Saviour uses terms of 


$10 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.4 


universality —* the world,” without any limitation; and (as if to show 
that he means especially the world of sinners) he adds, “of sin, because 
they believe not on me.” Here, then, the unbelieving world has the 
promise of the Holy Spirit, in his reproving or convicting influences, 

2. The Scriptures furnish instances in which the Spirit has operated 
directly on the minds of sinners. 

In Gen. vi. 8. we read: “And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not 
always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be a 
hundred and twenty years.” Connect with this the language of Peter, 
in the third chapter of his first Epistle: “For Christ also hath once 
suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, 
being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit; by which 
also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime 
were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the 
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.” Here it appears that 
for “one hundred and twenty years” the Spirit of God strove with that 
wicked people to lead them to repentance; but, as they resisted its 
influence, they were swept off by the flood. 

Christ is said to have “preached” to the antediluvians “ by the Spirit.” 
Now, unless we admit that the Spirit directly operated on the minds of 
that ungodly race, how can these words be interpreted? To say that 
nothing is meant, but simply the preaching of Noah, is perfectly gratu- 
itous. That Noah was a “ preacher of righteousness,” and warned the 
people of the approaching deluge, and that he was inspired to do this 
by the Holy Spirit, is freely admitted; but here Christ is said to have 
preached to them, not through Noah, but “ by the Spirit.” That Noah, 
while busily employed in the preparation of the ark, preached to every 
individual of the race then upon earth, cannot be proved, nor is it rea- 
sonable to be inferred. But to those “spirits” now “in prison,” without 
exception, “Christ preached by the Spirit.” 

Again, in reference to this, God said, “ My Spirit shall not always 
strive with man”—that is, with the entire race then existing. Those 
who can explain these passages by reference merely to the personal 
ministry of Noah, without admitting the direct influence of the Spirit 
in addition to the mere words and arguments of Noah, may well be 
considered persons of easy faith. So far from founding their belief on 
a “Thus saith the Lord,” they shape it according to their own fancy, in 
direct contradiction to the written word. 

Again: that the Holy Spirit operated on the minds and hearts of the 
Jewish nation, through the successive ages of the Mosaic dispensation, 
is evilent from Acts vii. 51: “Ye stiffnecked, and uncircumcised in 


Uh. xxVv.] THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 541 


heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did, 
so do ye.” 

Here the first martyr, in his last sermon to his incensed and wicked 
persecutors, charges them with “ resisting the Holy Ghost,” which they 
could not have done had he not first operated upon them. 

As an evidence of the wickedness of the Jews of former times, in 
thus “resisting the Holy Ghost,” they are directly charged with having 
“persecuted and slain the prophets;” showing a malignant and rebel- 
lious disposition, such as actuated the betrayers and murderers of our 
Lord. Now, to understand this as only implying that they had resisted 
the words uf the prophets, who were inspired by the Holy Ghost, is not 
to expound the sacred word, but most presumptuously to shape it 
according to our own notion. The Jews are charged with “resisting,” 
not the words of the prophets, but “the Holy Ghost.” The language, 
in its plainest import, signifies a direct resistance of the real agency of 
the Holy Spirit. Before we venture the assertion that the divine influ- 
ence in question was only indirect, through the written or spoken word, 
we should have explicit authority for such a departure from the most 
obvious sense of the language. 

3. That the Holy Spirit operates directly on the hearts of sinners, may 
be very conclusively argued from the fact that conviction, regeneration, 
and the entire change of moral character produced by the influence of 
religion, is in Scripture attributed to the Spirit’s agency. The Spirit is 
said to “convict;” it is declared that we “must be born of th Spirit ;” 
and all the graces constituting the Christian character, such as “love, 
joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, tem- 
perance,” etc., are said to be “the fruit of the Spirit.” From all this 
it is clear that, as conviction, the new birth, and all the graces of the 
Christian, are attributed to the influence of the Spirit, there must be 
an operation of the Spirit on the heart previous to their existence, in 
order to produce them; and if so, the Spirit must operate on the hearts 
of sinners, 


842 


ELEMENTS OF 


DIVINITY. 


[P.i. B& 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXV., 


QueEsrion 1. How has this doctrine been 


2. 


viewed by infidels? 
How by the different classes of Chris- 
tians? 


. What is said of its importance? 
. What is the first theory noticed on 


the subject, and how is it illus- 
trated ? 


. Does this theory admit the real influ- 


ence of the Spirit? 


. What is the second theory noticed, 


and how does it differ from the first? 


. In what two senses may the term 


medium be used? 
What is the distinction between an 
tetrument and an agent! 


- Does this theory imply any reas 


operation of the Spirit? 


. What is the true scriptural view of 


the doctrine? 


. Does the Spirit now operzte so as to 


reveal new truths? 


- How is it shown that the Spiris 


operates in conviction ? 


. How is it shown to be abstrd to 


deny the direct influence of the 
Spirit, and at the same time 
restrict its influence to baprzed 
believers ? 


. What instances are given in which 


tke Spirit did operate on the hearts 
of sinners! 


Ob. xxvi.) REPENTANCE. 248 


CHAPTER XXVI. 


_ REPENTANCE-—ITS NATURE, MEANS, AND NECESSITY. 


To the subject of Repentance great prominence has been given, not 
only by theologians generally, but also by the inspired penmen. Re- 
pentance was not only a theme familiar with the prophets of the Old 
Testament, but it was the burden of the message of John the Baptist, 
and an important point in the preaching of Christ himself and his 
immediate apostles, 

In the present investigation we propose to consider— 

I. The Nature of Repentance. 

II. The Means of Repentance. 

III. The Necessity of Repentance. 

I. In endeavoring to ascertain the Scripture doctrine in reference to the 
nature of repentance, which is the point proposed as first to be discussed, 
we hope to be conducted by the plain teachings of the Bible to such 
conclusions as shall be clear and satisfactory to the candid mind. 

1. In inquiring for the Scripture import of repentance, it is natural 
that our first appeal be made to the etymology of the word. 

Here we find that two different words in the Greek Testament, vary- 
ing in their signification, are rendered “ repent.” These are petapédopiat 
and petavoéw, The former implies a sorrowful change of the mind, or 
properly, contrition for sin; the latter implies all that is meant by the 
former, together with reformation from sin—that is, it implies a sorrow for, 
and a consequent forsaking of, or turning away from, sin. Macknight, 
in reference to these words, makes the following critical remarks: “The 
word, metanota, properly denotes such a change of one’s opinion con- 
cerning some action which he hath done, as produceth a change in his 
conduc. to the better. But the word, metameleia, signifies the grief which 
one feels for what he hath done, though it is followed with no alteration 
of conduct. The two words, however, are used indiscriminately in the 
LXX., for a change of conduct, and for grief on account of what hath 
been done.” (See Macknight on 2 Cor. vii. 10.) 

Here it may be observed that, although there is a diversity, there is 
uo opposition of meaning in these two words. The only difference is, 


844 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.4 


the one implies more than the other. Matanoeo in.plies all that is 
‘mplied by metamelomai, together with something farther. It is worthy 
of notice that with us, in common conversation, we frequently use the 
English word repent, merely to denote the idea of sorrow or contrition 
for the past, whether that sorrow be accompanied by any change of 
conduct or not. But in the investigation of the Scripture meaning 
of 1epentance, the distinction above made is important to be kept in 
mind, 

In reference to the repentance of Judas, spoken of in Matt. xxvii. 3, 
a form of the verb metamelomai is used, from which we conclude that 
there is no evidence from that expression whether his repentance went 
farther than mere contrition or not. But generally, where repentance 
is spoken of in Scripture, connected in any sense with salvation, the 
word used is a derivative of metanoeo. Hence we conclude that the 
proper definition of evangelical repentance, or that repentance which the 
gospel requires, includes both contrition and reformation. 

2. In accordance with what we have said, we find the definition of 
repentance, as adopted by Dr. Thomas Scott, to be as follows: “A gen- 
uine sorrow for sin, attended with a real inclination to undo, if it were 
possible, all we have sinfully done; and consequently an endeavor, as 
far as we have it in our power, to counteract the consequences of our 
former evil conduct; with a determination of mind, through divine 
grace, to walk for the future in newness of life, evidenced to be sincere 
by fruits meet for repentance—that is, by all holy dispositions, words, 
and actions.” (Scott’s Works, Vol. IV., p. 43.) . 

Substantially the same, but perhaps better expressed, is the definition 
of repentance given by Mr. Watson in his Biblical Dictionary, thus: 
“Kvangelical repentance is a godly sorrow wrought in the heart of a 
sinful person by the word and Spirit of God, whereby, from a sense of 
his sin, as offensive to God and defiling and endangering to his own 
soul, and from an apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, he, with 
grief and hatred of all his known sins, turns from them to God as hia 
Saviour and Lord.” 

By attention to the above definitions, as well as from the etymology 
of the word as already given, it will appear that all that is implied by 
evangelical repentance is properly embraced under one or the other of 
the two general heads presented—that is, contrition and reformation 
There may be both contrition and reformation, but if they are not of 
the right kind—if either of them be spurious—the repentance is not 
genuine. We may suppose the contrition to be genuine, yet if the 
genuine reformation does not ensue, the repentance is not evangelical, 


Uh xxvi.] REPENTANCE. 345 


Or we may suppose a thorough reformation to take place, at least so far 
as externals are concerned, yet, if it does not proceed from a right 
source—if it does not flow from a “ godly sorrow, wrought by the Spirit 
of God”—the repentance cannot be genuine. 

It may, however, be necessary to enlarge somewhat upon the defini- 
tions given. 

(1) First, then, in reference to that part of repentance which we have 
termed contrition, we observe, that it always presupposes and flows from 
conviction. 

What we think to be a little inaccuracy of expression has occurred 
with most theological writers, whether Calvinistic or Arminian, in ref- 
erence to this point. It has generally heen represented that conviction 
constitutes a part of repentance. 

Mr. Watson, than whom, we believe, a more discriminating divine, 
and one more critically correct, has never written, in speaking of 
repentance, uses, in his Biblical Dictionary, the following words: 
“Taken in a religious sense, it signifies conviction of sin, and sorrow 
for it.” Now, that conviction must necessarily precede repentance, and 
is indispensable to its existence, we readily concede; but that it consti- 
tutes a part of repentance, we think is so palpably unscriptural, that it 
is a little surprising that critical divines should so generally have passed 
over this point in such haste as to adopt the inaccuracy of expression 
in which, as we have seen, the penetrating Watson has, though inad- 
vertently, we believe, followed them. 

That conviction cannot be a part of repentance, we may clearly see 
when we reflect that God has never promised to repent for any man. 
“God is not the son of man that he should repent,” but he “ has com- 
manded all men everywhere to repent.” Again: conviction is a work 
which the Lord performs by the agency of the Holy Spirit, which is 
promised “to reprove (or convict) the world of sin,” ete. Now, we see 
from these passages, as well as from the whole tenor of Scripture, that 
God is the agent who convicts, and man is the agent who, under that 
conviction, and through divine. grace, is called upon to repent. God 
has never commanded us to convict ourselves, but he has commanded 
us to repent. Hence we infer that conviction constitutes no part of 
repentance. 

Again: that conviction cannot be a part of repentance is clear, not 
only from the definitions quoted from Scott and Watson, but also from 
the etymology of the word repent, as already shown. According to 
all these, “ repentance is a sorrow for sin,” ete. Now, “sorrow for sin” 
is not conviction, but an effect of conviction. Conviction, unless 


J46 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i Ba 


resisted, results in repentance; it leads to it, but does not evonstitute a 
part of it. 

(2) Again, we remark that contrition, the first part of repentanee, 
when not stifled or resisted by the sinner, results in, and leads to, reforma- 
tion—the second part of repentance. 

This may be seen from the words of the apostle, in 2 Cor. vii. 10: 
“For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented 
of.” Some have concluded from this passage that “godly sorrow” 
cannot be a part of repentance, because it is said to “ work repentance ;” 
and “repentance,” say they, “cannot be said to work, or produce, itself.” 
This seems to be rather a play upon words. We readily admit that a 
thing cannot be both effect and cause, at the same time and in the same 
sense; and consequently, in this acceptation, repentance cannot be the 
cause of itself. But one part of repentance may be the cause of the 
other; and this we believe is the clear meaning of the passage quoted : 
“Godly sorrow (that is, contrition, or the first part of repentance) 
worketh (or leadeth to, the second part of repentance—that is, the com- 
pletion of repentance—or, as it is expressed in the text) repentance 
to salvation.” Although “godly sorrow” is repentance begun, yet no 
repentance is “repentance to salvation” till it is completed ; or till it 
extends to a thorough reformation of heart and life. Hence we say 
with propriety that repentance begun worketh repentance completed; 
or, which is the same thing, “godly sorrow worketh repentance to sal- 
vation.” 

(3) Repentance presupposes the sinful condition of man, 

“A just person needeth no repentance.” As nonecan repent of their 
kins till they are first convicted, so none can be convicted of sin but 
such as have sinned. The general position here assamed—that sinners, 
and such only are proper subjects for repentance—is clear from the 
Scriptures. One or two quotations may be allowed. In Matt. ix. 13, 
the Saviour says: “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to 
repentance.” In Luke xiii. 2, 3: “Jesus answering, said unto them, 
Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, 
because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay; but except ye repent, 
ye shall all likewise perish.” Here the argument is, that as all are 
sinners, therefore they must repent, or perish. 

(4) The last question we shall discuss concerning the nature of 
repentance, relates to its connection with faith and regeneration. 

Upon this subject, between Calvinists generally, and Arminians, there 
is a great difference of sentiment. But this difference relates not to the 
ebstract, but to the relative, nature of repentance. They agree with 


Ch. xxVvi.] REPENTANCE. 347 


regard to what repentance is, considered in itself; but differ with regard 
to its relative character, as connected with faith and regeneration. The 
Calvinistic doctrine is, that faith and repentance both flow necessarily 
from, and are always preceded by, regeneration. 

The Calvinistic view on this subject is clearly presented in Buck’s 
Dictionary, thus: “1. Regeneration is the work of God enlightening 
the mind and changing the heart, and in order of time precedes faith, 
2. Faith is the consequence of regeneration, and implies the perception 
of an object. It discerns the evil of sin, the holiness of God, gives 
credence to the testimony of God in his word, and seems to precede 
repentance, since we cannot repent of that of which we have no clear 
perception, or no concern about. 3. Repentance is an after-thought, or 
sorrowing for sin, the evil nature of which faith perceives, and which 
immediately follows faith. Conversion is a turning from sin, which 
faith sees, and repentance sorrows for; and seems to follow, and to be 
the end of, all the rest.” (Buck’s Dict., Art. Faith.) 

Here we see that, according to the above, which is the view of Cal- 
vinists generally, there is, in reference to these graces, in point of time, 
the following order: 1. Regeneration. 2. Faith. 38. Repentance. 4. 
Conversion. 

Arminians think the Scriptures present a different order on this sub- 
ject. They contend that, so far from repentance and faith being pre 
ceded by regeneration, and flowing from it, they precede, and are 
conditions of, regeneration. But our business in the present chapter is 
with the subject of repentance. We shall endeavor to show that it 
precedes both saving faith and regeneration. 

Now observe, we do not contend that repentance precedes the enlight- 
ening, and, to some extent, the quickening, influence of the Holy Spirit, 
and some degree of faith; but we do contend that repentance precedes 
justifying faith and the new birth, which constitute an individual a new 
creature, or a child of God. 

We shall examine this subject in the light of Scripture. 

1. It appears evident from the total depravity of human nature, as 
taught in Scripture, that the soul must first be visited by the convicting 
grace of God, and that a degree of faith must be produced before the 
first step can be taken toward salvation. 

This we find also clearly taught in the word of God. In Heb. xi. 6, 
we read: “But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that 
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them 
that diligently seek him.” To show that at least a degree of conviction 
and of faith must necessarily precede evangelical repentance, many 


348 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. jP.i B.4 


other texts might be adduced ; but as this is a point which will scarcely 
be disputed, we deem the above sufticient. 

We proceed now to show that evangelical repentance precedes justi- 
fying faith and regeneration. It should, however, be remembered, that 
we do not contend that there is no repentance after faith and regenera- 
tion. It is freely admitted that repentance may and does continue, in 
some sense and to some extent, as long as there are remains of sin ip 
the soul, or perhaps as long as the soul continues in the body ; for even 
if we suppose the soul to be “cleansed from all sin,” a sorrowful remem- 
brance of past sins, which constitutes one part of repentance, may still 
be properly exercised. But the point of controversy is not whether 
repentance may succeed, but whether it precedes justifying faith and 
regeneration. A few passages of Scripture, we think, may determine 
the question, 

2. The general custom with the sacred writers, wherever repentance 
is spoken of in connection with faith or regeneration, 7s to place repent- 
ance first. 

Thus we read, Acts xx. 21: “ Testifying both to the Jews, and also 
to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
Christ.” Acts v. 31: “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to 
be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgive- 
ness of sins.” Mark i. 15: “Repent ye, and believe the gospel.” In 
these passages repentance is placed before faith and forgiveness. Now, 
although we would not rest our argument simply on the fact that re- 
pentance is placed invariably foremost by the inspired writers, yet, upon 
the supposition that it is always preceded by faith and regeneration, it 
would be difficult to account for the general observance of this order in 
the Scriptures. 

Again: the Scriptures frequently speak of repentance as the first step 
or commencement of religion. The dispensation of John the Baptist 
was introductory or preparatory to the gospel ; and his preaching was 
emphatically the doctrine of repentance. He called on the people to 
repent and be baptized with “the baptism of repentance,” and this was 
to prepare the way for Christ—to prepare the people by repentance for 
the reception of the gospel by faith. In Heb. vi. 1, we read: “Not 
laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of Jaith 
toward God.” Here repentance is not only placed before faith, but it 
is spoken of as the “ foundation,” or commencement, in religion. 

3. In Acts ii. 38, St. Peter says: “Repent, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye. 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” These persons could not have 


Ub. xxvi.] REPENTANCE, 349 


been regenerated believers, for if so, their sins must have been already 
remitted; but they were commanded to “repent and be baptized,” in 
order to remission. Hence it is clear that with them repentance pre- 
ceded remission ; but, as remission always accompanies faith and regen- 
eration, their repentance must have preceded faith and regeneration. 
It is said in Matt. xxi. 32: “And ye, when ye had seen it, repented not 
afterward, that ye might believe him.” Here repentance is presented aa 
a necessary antecedent of faith. . 

Quotations on this point might be greatly extended, but we will add 
but one text more— Acts iii, 19: “Repent ye, therefore, and be con- 
verted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing 
shall come from the presence of the Lord.” Here repentance, so far 
from being presented as “an after-thought,” following saving faith and 
regeneration, is presented as one of the conditions in order to remission ; 
and, consequently, in order to faith and regeneration. 

4, We here simply add, that the Calvinistic scheme, in requiring 
regeneration and justifying faith to precede repentance, appears to be 
not only not countenanced by the general tenor of Scripture, but is like- 
wise seriously objectionable on other grounds. As “all men, every- 
where,” are “commanded to repent,” and that, not after they shall 
become regenerated, but “now ”—at this moment—it follows either that 
they are commanded to do what God knows they cannot do, or that 
repentance may precede regeneration. 

Once more: as all men are required to repent, and warned that 
“except they repent, they shall perish,” it follows, that if they cannot 
repent till they are first regenerated, and if regeneration be a work in 
which “the sinner is passive,” as the Calvinists teach, then the finally 
impenitent may urge a fair excuse for neglecting to repent; they may 
say: “Truly we never repented, but we are not to blame; repentance 
could not precede regeneration, and we were compelled to wait for thy 
regenerating grace.” We deem it useless to pursue this subject farther. 
We have endeavored to illustrate the nature of repentance, both by 
considering what it implies in the abstract, and by noticing its relation 
to faith and regeneration. 

II. Our second proposition is, to consider the means of repentance. 

In contemplating this subject, we would here endeavor to guard 
against presumption on the one hand, and despair on the other. By the 
former, we may be led to look upon repentance as a work of our own, 
that we may fully accomplish by the unassisted exercise of our own 
powers; and thus we may be led to despise the proffered grace of the 
gospel, and by scornfully rejecting the aid of Heaven, be left to perish 


850 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi B.4 


in our sins. By the latter, we may be led to look upon repentance as 
a work of God alone, in reference to which the efforts of man are per- 
fectly useless; and thus we may be led to repose our consciences upon 
the downy pillow of careless indifference, and yield ourselves up to the 
seducing slumbers of sin, till the door of repentance shall be closed 
against us forever. A correct understanding of this subject will tend 
to preserve us from danger from either extreme; and while it will 
ascribe all “the excellency of the power,” in repentance to God, it will 
place before man, in its proper light, his appropriate duty. To suppose 
that the carnal mind can turn itself to God, and by its own innate, 
underived energy, work out “repentance unto salvation,” is to set aside 
the doctrine of human depravity, and contradict those scriptures which 
refer to God as the author of repentance. To suppose that man can 
have no agency whatever in the work of repentance, is to deny his 
responsibility for his actions, and discard those scriptures which call 
upon “all men, everywhere, to repent.” 

It is very true, God is the author of all evangelical repentance. He 
is said “to give” and “to grant repentance ;” but, in the same sense, he 
is the author of all good; for every good gift, and every perfect gift, is 
from above, and cometh down from the “ Father of lights.” God gives 
or grants repentance in the same sense in which he gives us health in 
our bodies, or the rich harvest in our fields. None, however, are so 
foolish as to expect these blessings in the neglect of the means. Do 
men refuse medicine when they are sick, because God is the author of 
heal‘h? or refuse to sow or to plow, because the harvest is the gift of 
God? In reference to these things, men do not reason with such folly 
Why, then, should any excuse themselves from the duty of repentance 
because it is said to be a gift or grant from the Lord? The truth is 
that although God is the author of repentance, yet he confers thas 
blessing according to a certain plan; and such as use the prescribed 
means have the promise that they shall attain unto the proposed end, 
What are those means? 

1. The first that we shall notice is serious reflection. 

The sinful multitude, immersed in worldly pursuits—allured by the 
“fictitious trappings of honor, the imposing charms of wealth, or the 
impious banquets of pleasure”—seldom take time to listen to the voice 
of religion. Moses laments over the thoughtlessness of an ungodly 
race, saying: “O that they were wise, that they understood this; that 
they would consider their latter end!” The Lord himself exhibits 
against his forgetful Israel the following solemn accusation: “The ox 
knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Jsrar] doth not 


Uh, xxi. REPENTANCE. 351 


know, my people do not consider.” So it has been in every age: the 
first difficulty in the way of the messenger of salvation has been to 
arouse and engage the serious attention of the careless sinner. Our 
holy religion “commends itself to every man’s conscience,” and will 
command homage, if once it gain attention, The first thing, therefore, 
to be accomplished, if we would repent of our sins, is seriously to “con- 
sider our ways.” Let us pause in our headlong rush to destruction, 
and ponder the paths of our feet; let us give to the religion of Christ 
that consideration which its importance demands, and to our own con- 
duct that honest reflection which its nature requires, and the impression 
will be such as is calculated to lead to repentance. 

2. The next means of repentance which we will notice is self-evami- 
nation. . 

To repent of our sins, we must first see and feel them. The man 
must know that he is diseased before he will send for the physician ; 
even so, we must so examine our hearts and lives as to discover that 
we are indeed sinners, before we will ery, “ Lord, save, or we perish.” 
We should so examine ourselves in the light of God’s truth as to bring 
up to our view not only our flagrant transgressions, our outward and 
more daring crimes, but also our secret faults, our more hidden sins. 
We should probe the soul to the very center, and bring out to view its 
naked deformity, its exceeding sinfulness. Well has it been said : 


Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, 
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen. 


Even so, could we but so examine our hearts and lives as to array oun 
sins before us in all their turpitude, we should be led to ery out, “ Woe 
> We should be led to “abhor 
ourselves, and to repent in dust and ashes.” But there is, perhaps, no 
work in which the sinner can engage, more irksome to the feelings than 
self-examination. As if conscious of our fearful delinquencies, we shun 
the investigation, lest we should be “ weighed in the balances, and found 
wanting.” 

3. The next means of repentance which we shall notice is meditation 
on the goodness of God. 

Paul says: “The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.” Such 
is the gracious arrangement of a merciful God, that those inducements 
which are the best calculated to enlist our attention and engage our 
affections, are presented us in the gospel. Our hopes and our fears, our 
affections and our aversions, our reason, judgment, and conscience, are 
all addressed. But perhaps no emotion is more sweetly captivating to 


is me, for 1am a man of unclean lips.’ 


852 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.1. B.4 


the better feelings of the soul than gratitude. When is it that the child 
with most emotion dwells upon the character and the actions of a dear 
departed parent? It is when busy memory calls up to the freshness of 
life a thousand acts of kindness and affection. When the tender sym- 
pathies and watchful concern, which none but a father or a mother can 
feel, are brought up to our minds as from the solemn graye, then it is 
that we feel the obligations of gratitude; then the last pious admoni- 
tion of a departed parent rushes upon the memory and subdues the 
heart, with an eloquence surpassing the power of the most pathetic 
sermon. 

But if earthly parents, by the ten thousand benefits which we derive 
from them, can have claims on our gratitude, how much greater are the 
claims of our heavenly Father! The “goodness and mercy of the 
Lord have followed us all the days of our lives.” We read his mercy 
in all his works. It is written upon every leaf, and wafted upon every 
breeze. It glows in every star, and sparkles in every brook. But, 
above all, in the unspeakable gift of Christ, in his sufferings and death 
for our sins, we behold, beyond the power of language to tell, the love 
of God to us. A consideration of this glorious theme should lead us 
to repentance. Hard, indeed, must be the heart, and fiend-like the 
soul, that can contemplate such a debt of love, and feel no pang in 
offending against such goodness. Meditation on the goodness of the 
Lord should lead us to repentance. 

4. The fourth and last means to aid us in the duty of repentance, is 
an ardent looking to God, and dependence upon him, in faith and prayer. 

In vain may the husbandman plow or sow, unless the fruitful season 
be given by the Lord. Even so, all our efforts are vain, without the 
divine blessing upon them. Yet we need not be discouraged, for God 
hath promised: “Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find; 
knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” And again: “ Every one that 
asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh 
it shall be opened.” We should “come boldly unto the throne of grace, 
that we may obtain mercy, and find” the grace of repentance, that we 
may live. 

II. As the third and last division of our subject, we shall briefly 
notice the necessity of repentance. 

The broad and comprehensive ground on which the necessity of repent- 
ance is based, is most forcibly expressed in Seripture in the following 
sentence: “ Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” Here is the 
ground of its necessity. Without repentance, we can have no hope of 
happiness. We must inevitably perish. There are, however, various 


Jn. xxvi.] REPFN'LANUE. 3538 


considerations upon which the truth of this proposition is based, A few 
of these we shall now briefly notice. 

1. It results from the nature of that law against which we have sinned, 
aul under whose curse we have fallen. 

Had we violated a law like many of the statutes of earthly monarchs, 
unreasonable or unjust in its requirements, a righteous administration 
might remit the penalty, without the requirement of repentance. But 
the divine law which we have transgressed, required no unreason- 
able service. It is “holy, just, and good.” In sinning against such a 
law, the eternal fitness of things, the immutable principles of equity 
and justice, demand the infliction of condign punishment. Hence, 
without repentance, we can no more-hope to escape the sentence of 
justice, than we can expect the very throne of heaven to be shaken, 
and the government of God demolished. 

2. The necessity of repentance appears from the very nature of sin. 

What is sin, both in its essence and consequences? It is direct rebel- 
lion against God. It is a renunciation of allegiance to our Maker. It 
is a surrender of our powers to the service of the grand enemy of God 
and man; and it brings upon the soul that derangement and contamina- 
tion of all its powers, which utterly disqualify for the service and enjoy- 
ment of God. 

It isan axiom of eternal truth, that we “cannot serve God and mam- 
mon.” We cannot, at the same time, serve the devil, the source and 
fountain of all evil, and the Lord Jehovah, the source and fountain of 
all good and of all happiness. ‘To be prepared for the service of God 
here, for those devout and holy exercises which religion requires, we 
must renounce the service of sin and Satan. We must “cast off the 
works of darkness,” before we are prepared to “put on the armor of 
light.” And how, we ask, even if we were not required to serve God 
here, could we be prepared, with hearts which are “enmity to God,” 
and polluted souls, “desperately wicked,” to enter upon the high and 
holy employment of the blood-washed sons of light? How could such 
rebellious and polluted spirits participate in the heavenly raptures and 
ceaseless hosannas that thrill the hearts of the countless millions of the 
redeemed, and swell the symphonies of heaven? Surely an impenitent 
and polluted soul can have no congeniality of nature or of feeling for 
heavenly bliss. We must, therefore, repent, or we never can enter the 
mansions of the blessed. 

3. Our last proof for the necessity of repentance is based upon the 
express declaration of the word of God. 

“God, that cannot lie,” hath declared, “Except ye repent, ye shal 


23 


854 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 4. 


all likewise perish.” “Al men everywhere are commanded to repent.” 
Such, therefore, as refuse to obey this command, can have no hope in a 
coming day. As certain as God is true, their final doom to endless 
misery is fixed. God “shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, 
taking vengeance on” impenitent sinners, “ who obey not the gospel of 
our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

Thus have we considered the nature, the means, and the necessity of 
repentance. May the Lord give us “repentance to salvation, net to be 
repented of.’ Amen! 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXVI. 


(JuESTION 1. Does repentance occupy a|16. What is the Calvinistic view ? 


prominent place in Scripture ? 17. How is it proved that repentance 
2. Was it taught by the prophets? precedes justifying faith and re- 
3. By John the Baptist? generation ? 
4. Into what three parts is the chapter | 18. Upon what other grounds is the 
divided ? Calvinistic view objectionable ? 
6. What two Greek words of the New | 19. In reference to the means of repent: 
Testament are rendered repent ? ance, wherein is there danger ot 
6 What is the meaning of each? despair, and of presumption ¢ 


7 Which word is generally used for | 20. How is this guarded? 
evangelical repentance in the New | 21. What is the first means given? 


Testament? _ | 22. What is the second? 
8. In what two things does evangelical | 23. The third? 
repentance consist ? 24. The fourth? 
. How is it defined by Scott and Wat- | 25. Upon what is the necessity of repent 
son? ance based ? 
16. Does conviction constitute a part of | 26. What is the first proof of this? 
repentance? 27. The second? 
11. Does repentance presuppose convic- | 28. The third? 
tion? 29. What kind of repentance may we 
12. Does conviction necessarily result in suppose Judas had? 
repentance ? 30. What is meant when it is said that 
13. Is godly sorrow a part of repent- the Lord repented ? 
ance? 31. Can an individual repent without 
14. To what character is repentance ap- any degree of faith? 
propriate ? 32. Does repentance continue after jus 
15. What is the connection between re- tification ? 


pentance, and faith, and regenera- | 33 In what sense may a sanctified per 
tioa? son repent? 


Ok. ravii.] FAITH. 955 


CHAPTER XXVII. 
FAITH—ITS GENERAL IMPORT—JUSTIFYING FAITH CONSIDEI.ED. 


Farru, the subject now proposed for discussion, is one of the most 
prominent and important doctrines of the Bible. We find it presented 
in almost every part of both the Old and New Testament; and it occu- 
pies a conspicuous place under the Patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian 
dispensations. It appears in the confessions and standards of all Chris- 
tian denominations, and has been extensively discussed by theological 
writers in every age. From all these considerations, as well as from the 
intimate connection between faith and salvation which the Scriptures 
exhibit, we might be led to infer that it is a subject well understood, and 
one in reference to which Christians are generally agreed. But such is 
far from being the case. The discordant systems of theology which 
men have adopted have produced a great diversity of sentiment on the 
subject of faith; and many of the different denominations, and perhaps 
some in all, are either under the influence of sentiments exceedingly 
erroneous, or have no clear and satisfactory views in reference to this 
important doctrine. 

We propose, in the present chapter, to examine with as much care, 
and present with as much clearness, as our ability will allow, the various 
aspects of this doctrine, as exhibited in Holy Writ. 

I. WE CONSIDER THE GENERAL IMPORT OF FAITH. 

1. The Greek word rendered faith in the New Testament is miotee, 
from the verb 7ef@, which means to persuade. Therefore the proper 
definition of faith, according to the etymology of the word, is, belief of 
the truth; or, that persuasion by which a proposition is received as true. 
This is the general meaning of the term; and whatever modifications 
it may receive, or whatever different aspects it may properly assume, the 
Scriptures themselves must determine. Let it, however, be borne in 
mind, that the above is the proper meaning of tne word; and however 
much it may be qualified, limited, or extended in signification, accord- 
ing to the peculiar aspect in which the subject may be presented im 
Beripture, it cannot ‘“e understood in any sense contradictory to the 


856 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B 4. 


above. It must imply the belief of the truth; but it may imply this 
to a greater or less degree, and under a diversity of circumstances. 

In perfect consistency with the literal meaning of the term, we are 
furnished with a definition of faith by Paul, in the eleventh chapter of his 
Epistle to the Hebrews: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped 
for, the evidence of things not seen.” The Greek word iréoraatc, here 
rendered substance, is, by Macknight and other critics, rendered confi- 
dence; and we find the same original word in Heb. iii. 14, rendered 
confidence in the common translation. This perfectly accords with the 
etymological meaning of faith above given—that is, faith is the belief, 
or the confidence—the strong persuasion—of the truth or reality of 
things hoped for. In the latter clause of the verse, the word éAeyyoe, 
rendered evidence, is, by many critics, translated conviction. It signifies 
a strict proof or demonstration. The apostle’s definition of faith, there- 
fore, may be stated as follows: Faith is the strong persuasion and clea 
demonstration of things hoped for, and of things invisible. 

II. With these remarks concerning the general definition of faith, 
we proceed to the farther investigation of the doctrine, as presented in the 
Scriptures. 

1. At the very commencement of the investigation, we are met by 
a question upon which has originated much controversy among theolo- 
gians in different ages of the Church—TIs faith the gift of God, or is _ 
it the act of the creature?” shpat AS 

This question, which is far from being free from ambiguity in itself, 
has been thrust forth by many as a kind of talisman for the detection 
of heresy—as something possessing extraordinary powers, by which the 
orthodoxy of an individual may at once be tested. And with many 
persons, assuming high claims to soundness in the faith, what they con- 
ceived to be an improper answer to the above question, has furnished 
legitimate grounds for non-fellowship or excommunication. 

We think, however, it will be seen, upon a slight examination, that 
the question itself needs explanation, before any inference of serious 
importance can be made from the answer. The proper answer to the 
question must depend upon the meaning attached to the terms used. 
The words “ gift of God,” and “act of the creature,” may be taken in 
a diversity of acceptations. Thus the manna which fed the Israelites 
in the wilderness, and the rich harvest produced by the field of Boaz, 
were both the gift of God; but no one can say that they were the “ gift 
of God” in the same sense. In the former case, the gift was absolute 
and direct from Heaven, without the agency of man. In the latter 
tase, the agency of man was required for the cultivation of the field. 


Ch. xxvii. FAITH. 857 


Likewise there are different senses in which a thing may be understood 
to be “an act of the creature.” Thus, what Saul of Tarsus did, when 
he “held the clothes of them that stoned Stephen,” and what the “man 
with the withered hand” did, when, at the bidding of Christ, he 
“stretched forth his hand,” were both acts of the creature; but no one 
can say that they were such in the same sense. In the former case, an 
act was performed in the exercise of the native powers, without the 
assistance of divine grace. In the latter case, the act was performed 
by the assistance of divine aid imparted at the time. We will now 
endeavor to determine in what sense “faith is the gift of God,” and in 
what sense it is “the act of the creature.” 

2. According to.the-Antinomian-theory, faith is-the-gift.of God_in 
the same sense as was the manna from heaven, above referred to—that 
is; Antinomians understand that faith is a grace, or a something pos- 
sessing an abstract existence, as separate and distinct from the existence 
and Ppienon of the believer as the manna in question was from the 
existence and operations of the people who gathered and used it. This 
has been the avowed sentiment of Antinomian Calvinists during the 
last and present century ; and, indeed, it is difficult for any interpretation 
of the subject, essentially variant from this, to be reconciled with Cal- 
vinism even in the mildest forms it has assumed. 

An idea so absurd and unscriptural as the above, and which has 
been so frequently disproved by arguments perfectly unanswerable, 
requires, on the present occasion, but a brief notice. Suffice it to say 
that, according to this notion of faith, to call upon men to believe, and 
to hold them responsible for their unbelief, would be just as consistent 
with reason and Scripture as to call upon them to stop the planets in 
their course, and to hold them responsible for the rotation of the 
seasons. 

Such a view of the subject is not only inconsistent with the whole tenor 
of Scripture, which enjoins upon man the exercise of faith as a duty, 
but it is irreconcilable with the very nature of faith. What is faith? 
It is no abstract entity which God has treasured up in the magazines 
of heaven, to be conveyed down to man without any agency of his, as 
the olive-leaf was borne to the window of the ark by Noah’s dove. 
Faith has no existence in the abstract. We might as well suppose 
that there can be thought, without an intelligent being to think, as that 
faith can exist separate from the agent who believes. Faith is the act 

——— SE - 

elieving: it is an exercise of the mind; and, in the very nature 

of things, must be dependent on the agency of the believer for its 
existence. 


858 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pa Be 


There is, however, a sense in which we think faith may with propriety 
be called the gift of God. What we have already said is sufficient to 
show that it cannot be the gift of God in such sense as to exclude the 
appropriate means, or the proper agency of man. The doings and the 
gifts of God may be performed or imparted either directly or indirectly, 
God may carry on his works, and confer his favors, either directly, by 
the exertion of his own immediate agency, or indirectly, by the employ- 
ment of such agencies or instrumentalities as his wisdom may select. 
Thus the harvest, which has been the product of much toil on the part 
of the husbandman, is really the gift of God, though not so directly as 
the manna from heaven, or even “the showers that water the earth.” 
Whatsoever is the result of a merciful arrangement of God, although 
our own agency may be requisite to our enjoyment of the blessing, is, 
in an important sense, the gift of God. For example, the sight of 
external objects results from a merciful arrangement of God, by which 
the surrounding rays of light are adapted to the organization of the 
numan eye. Thus sight may be called the gift of God, but not so as 
to exclude human agency; for we may either open or close our eyes at 
pleasure; we may look upward to the stars or downward to the earth ; 
we may turn to the right or left at will. 

Even so, faith results from a merciful arrangement of God, not inde- 
pendent of, but in connection with, the free moral agency of man. It 
is of God’s merciful arrangement that we are presented with a Saviour, 
the proper object of faith; that we have access to his word and gospel, 
unfolding the plan of salvation, and exhibiting the subject-matter of 
faith; that we are presented with the proper evidences of the truth of 
our holy religion, serving as the ground or reason of our faith; that we 
have minds and hearts susceptible of divine illumination and gracious 
influence, enabling us to engage in the exercise of faith; and, lastly, 
that the gracious influence, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is 
vouchsafed unto us, by which we may, in the exercise of the ability 
which God giveth, in connection with all these privileges, “believe to 
the salvation of our souls.” 

In reference to all these particulars, so far as they are connected with, 
or enter into, the composition of faith, it is properly the gift of God. 
And as God is the proper “author and finisher of our fai*h,” because 
it is thus through his merciful arrangement, and by the aid of divine 
grace imparted, that we are enabled to believe, we may therefore say 
with propriety that in these acceptations faith is the gift of God. But 
all this is far from admitting that faith is in no sense the act of the 
creature. Indeel, that it is the act of the creature in an important 


Oh. xxvii.] FALLH. 359 


sense, is implied clearly in what we have just presented. For, after all 
that God has done, man must act—his agency must be put forth, or 
faith cannot exist. Not that he can of himself do any good thing—his 
“sufficiency is of God;” but “through Christ strengtnening him,” he 
can and must exert an agency in believing. God has never promised 
to believe for any man; nor can any man ever possess faith till through 
grace he exercise the ability with which God has endowed him. From 
what has been said, we think it evident wherein faith is both the gift of 
God and the act of the creature. 

It may be objected by some, that, according to the view presented, it 
is an inaccuracy to term faith the gift of God; for it is only the grace 
and ability to believe that are the gift of God; and this grace and 
ability are not faith, but something distinct from it, and from which it 
results. To which we reply, that although it is true that the grace and 
ability to believe are not faith, yet, as faith results from the exercise of 
that grace and ability, and flows from that merciful arrangement of 
Gud by which man is enabled to believe, we think there is the same 
propriety in styling faith the gift of God that there is for so considering 
the food we eat, and the raiment we put on, for the securing of which 
our agency in the use of the appropriate means is indispensably 
requisite. 

3. Perhaps after all we have said, some may yet think there are a 
few passages of Scripture which seem to present faith as the gift of 
God, to the exclusion of the agency of the creature. The two texts 
principally relied on for that purpose we will briefly notice. The first 
is Col. ii. 12, where it is said, “ Ye are risen with him through the faith 
of the operation of God.” Here, it is true, faith is said to be “of the 
operation of God.” But does this imply that the agency of the creature 
is excluded? Surely not. God is said to “work in us both to will and 
to do of his good pleasure;” yet we are commanded to “ work out our own 
salvation with fear and trembling.” According to the scheme we have 
presented concerning the connection of the gift of God with the agency 
of man in the work of faith, these texts are perfectly consistent with 
each other; but if we interpret the one so as to make faith the gift of 
God independent of man’s agency, the other can only be interpreted in 
direct opposition. 

The next text relied upon is Eph. ii. 8: “For by grace are ye saved 
through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.’ 
Doddridge, and other commentators of the Calvinistic school, take the 
relative TovTo (that) to. refer to téotwc¢ (faith) for its antecedent; and 
thereby make the apostle to say directly that faith is “the gift of God.” 


860 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. Reba vest 


But Chandler, Macknight, Clarke, and many of the best tritics, contend 
that toro, which is neuter gender, cannot naturally refer to moves, 
which is feminine; but that the antecedent is the preceding part of the 
sentence, or the salvation spoken of as being “by grace and through 
faith.” Macknight has supplied 7 mpdypa (this affair) as the anteced- 
ent—that is, “this salvation by grace and through faith is not of your- 
selves: it is the gift of God.” So that we may be well satisfied that 
this passage affirms nothing in reference to the question whether faith 
is the gift of God or not. But even if it did, it cannot invalidate the 
view of the subject which we have presented; for we have shown 
wherein it is the gift of God, and wherein it is the act of the creature. 

4. The next point which we will present for consideration, is the pro- 
gressive nature of faith. 

According to the Scriptures, there are degrees in faith. Faith may 
not only take a more extensive range in relation to the things embraced, 
but the degree of confidence with which they are embraced may also 
be increased. In Matt. vi. 30, our Saviour addresses his disciples, say- 
ing, “O ye of little faith.” In Matt. viii. 10, he says, in reference to the 
centurion’s faith, “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” 
Here “little faith’”and “great faith” are both spoken of; hence it must 
consist of degrees. 

In Matt. xvii. 20, the disciples are exhorted to “have faith as a grain 
of mustard-seed”—clearly implying that, like as that diminutive seed 
grows to a large tree, so their faith should expand and increase more 
aud more. In Luke xvii. 5, we find the disciples praying, “ Lord, 
imereuse our faith” —clearly implying that it might become greater than 
it was. In Rom. i. 17, we read: “For therein is the righteousness of 
God revealed from fuith to fuith.” This can only be understood to 
mean from one degree of faith to another. In 2 Thess. i. 3, Paul says 
to his brethren, “Your faith groweth exceedingly.” And in 2 Cor. x. 
15, the apostle says to his brethren, “But having hope, when your faith 
ts increased,” ete. From all which passages the idea is clearly taught 
that there are degrees in faith; but, as this is a point so plain as scarcely 
to admit of controversy, we dismiss it without farther comment. 

5. We will next consider the channel through which faith is derived. 

This is the hearing of the word. In Rom. x. 14-17, the apostle says: 
“How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? 
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and 
how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, 
except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of 
them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good 


Ch. xxvii.} FAITH. 361 


things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, 
Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, 
and hearing by the word of God.” 

The great appositeness of the preceding passage to the point in hand 
will justify the length of the quotation. That the hearing of the word 
is the medium of faith, will farther appear from the following passages. 
In John xvii. 20, our Saviour says: “Neither pray I for these alone, 
but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.” John 
xx. 30, 31: “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of 
his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written 
that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that 
velieving ye might have life through his name.” Many other texts, 
having the same general bearing, might be added; but the above will 
show that the hearing of the gospel, or the acquiring of the knowledge of 
the great truths of God’s word, is the appointed channel of saving faith. 

6. In the next place, we remark, that faith is not a blind assent of 
the mind, resting upon no rational foundation; but it is a well-grounded 
conviction, and a reasonable confidence, based upon good and sufficient evi- 
dence. 

God has never enjoined upon man the duty of faith, without first 
presenting before him a reasonable foundation for the same. Christ 
never arbitrarily assumed the prerogatives of the Messiahship, but he 
appealed for the confirmation of his claims to honorable and weighty 
testimony; nor are we required to believe the gospel, independent of the 
evidence it affords of its own divinity. 

The proper ground or reason of faith will appear from the following 
scriptures:—John x. 37, 38: “If I do not the works of my Father, 
believe me not. But if Ido, though ye believe not me, believe the works ; 
that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.” 
John y. 36: “But I have greater witness than that of John; for the 
works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I 
do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.” Acts ii. 22: 
“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazarcth, a man 
approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs, 
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.” 
Heb. ii. 3, 4: “ How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation ; 
which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed 
unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both 
with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy 
Ghost, according to his own will?” 2 Pet. i. 16,17: “For we have 
not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto yor 


362 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.4 


the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses 
of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, 
when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is 
my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.” In all these scriptures, 
the proper evidences are appealed to as the foundation of faith. 

III. WE NOW CONSIDER JUSTIFYING FAITH. Faith, by theological 
writers, has been divided into different kinds, such as divine faith, 
human faith, historical faith, the faith of miracles, justifying faith, ete. 
A particular explanation of each of these kinds of faith we deem 
unnecessary, as the terms in which they are expressed are sufficiently 
explicit. 

We will close the present chapter by a special consideration of that 
faith, which in the gospel is presented as saving or justifying in its nature. 
St. Paul declares the gospel to be “the power of God unto salvation to 
every one that believeth ;” and he said to the jailer, “Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” These passages clearly exhibit 
that prominent feature of the gospel—that faith is connected with sal- 
vation. The point now before us is to inquire what is implied in that 
faith. 

We know of but two leading views in reference to the nature or 
degree of the faith in question. 

The first is a notion which has found favor with Socinians, Arians, 
Unitarians, etc., in different ages of the Church; and in modern times, 
also, with the Rationalists of Germany, and with some New School 
Presbyterians and some classes of Baptists of the United States. The 
view referred to is this: that the faith which the gospel enjoins is simply 
the assent of the mind, or a mental conviction of the truth of the facts and 
doctrines of the gospel, resulting from an examination and intellectual 
apprehension of the evidences of Christianity, without any direct communi 
cation of supernatural aid or divine influence, or any trust or reliance of 
the soul on Christ, farther than what is necessarily implied in the conviction 
produced in the understanding by rational investigation, that “Jesus Christ 
ws the Son of God,” and that the gospel is true. 

The other view upon this subject is that which has been advocated by 
the great body of orthodox Christians in all ages. It embraces all that 
is implied in the preceding definition, together with a special trust or 
reliance of the soul on Christ for salvation, farther than what is implied in 
the simple assent of the understanding. 

The former view, it will be perceived, reduces the exercise cf faith to 
a mere intellectual process; the latter, in addition to this, requires a 
trust or reliance of the heart. The vital importance of settling this 


oh. xxvii. FAITH. 268 


question vorrectly must be apparent to every one. It is intimately 
connected with the salvation of the soul. A mistake here may be 
fatal; and certainly no one can be interested in being in error where so 
much is at stake. We think the honest inquirer after truth may easily 
find in the inspired volume a satisfactory decision on the point at issue. 

1. Our first argument on this point is based upon what is said in 
reference to the faith of devils. 

St. James, in speaking of a dead, inoperative faith, which can only 
imply the assent of the understanding to the truth of Scripture, says: 
“The devils also believe and tremble.” In accordance with this is the 
language of a devil, when our Lord was about to expel him from the 
man possessed: “I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.” 
Thus it appears that, so far as theoretical faith is concerned, the devils 
are possessed of faith; and if the gospel only required of men the 
belief of the truth with the understanding, it would but enjoin the 
faith of devils; but as we suppose none will admit that the faith which 
justifies the sinner is such as devils possess, we infer that justifying 
faith must imply more than the bare assent of the understanding. If 
gospel faith be the assent of the understanding only, we may with 
propriety ask, who is a stronger believer than Satan himself? 

2. It appears from the Scriptures that many were convinced in their 
understandings of the Messiahship of Christ, and of the truth of the 
gospel, who, nevertheless, did not “believe to the saving of their souls.” 

As instances of such, we might name Nicodemus and Simon Magus. 
We have the faith of the former in the following orthodox confession: 
“We know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do 
these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” Here, so far 
as the mere mental conviction of the truth is concerned, it would be 
difficult to invalidate the faith of Nicodemus. He acknowledged the 
divinity of the Saviour’s mission, and he based his faith on the proper 
evidence—“the miracles” the Saviour performed. Yet he was not 
saved; for the Saviour declares unto him, “ Ye must be born again.” 

And what can we think of Simon Magus? In the eighth chapter of 
The Acts, we learn that “Simon himself believed also,” and “was bap- 
tized”—that is, he “believed Philip preaching the things concerning 
the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ.” Yet, immediately 
afterward, he is said to have “neither part nor lot in the matter;” but 
to be “in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” Yet there 
is no charge brought against the character of his belief; it is not inti- 
mated that his mind was not informed in reference to the character and 
elaims of Christ; or that his understanding was not convinced of the 


364 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.4 


truth of what he had heard. The charge affects not his understanding, 
or his reasoning, but his moral character. The apostle declares: “Thy 
heart is not right in the sight of God.” The defect was evidently in the 
heart, and not in the head. So far as the mere assent of the under- 
standing is concerned, it does not appear that there was any defect in 
the faith of Nicodemus or Simon Magus; but, as neither of them 
believed “to the saving of the soul,” we fairly infer that gospel faith 
implies more than a mental conviction of the truth from the force of 
testimony. The head may be as orthodox, and at the same time the 
heart as wicked, as Satan himself. 

3. The Scriptures eaplicitly present justifying faith as implying trust or 
reliance, as well as mental assent. 

Ps. xxii. 4: “Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst 
deliver them.” This is evidently the character of the faith by which 
“the elders obtained a good report.” Again, St. Paul says: “With the 
heart man believeth unto righteousness”—clearly implying that faith 
reaches beyond the mere intellect, and lays hold on the moral powers. 
In Eph. i. 12, we read: “That we should be to the praise of his glory 
who first trusted in Christ,” ete. Here the apostle is evidently speaking 
of embracing Christ by saving faith, and he expresses it by the word 
trust—implying more than the cold assent of the mind. Rom. iii. 25: 
“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his 
blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are 
past, through the forbearance of God.” “It is not surely that we may 
merely believe that the death of Christ is a sacrifice for sin, that he is 
set forth as a propitiation, but that we may trust in its efficacy. It is 
not that we may merely believe that God has made promises to us, that 
his merciful engagements in our favor are recorded, but that we may 
have confidence in them, and thus be supported by them. ‘This was the 
faith of the saints of the Old Testament. ‘By faith Abraham when he 
was called to go out into a place, which he should after receive for an 
inheritance, obeyed, and he went out, not knowing whither he went.’ 
His faith was confidence. ‘Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.’ 
‘Who is among you that feareth the Lord? let him trust in the name of 
the Lord, and stay upon his God.’ ‘Blessed is the man that trusteth in 
the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.’ It is under this notion of trust 
that faith is continually represented to us also in the New Testament. 
‘In his name shall the Gentiles trust.’ ‘For, therefore, we both labor 
and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God,’ ete. ‘For I know 
whom I have believed,’ (trusted,) ete. ‘If we hold the beginning of 
our confidence steadfast unto the end.’” (Watson’s Institutes.) 


Ch. xxvii.) FAITH. 865 


4. In the last place, we remark, that the notion that saving, or 
justifying, faith implies no more than the assent of the understand- 
‘ing resulting from the force of testimony, is encumbered by serious 
difficulties, in view of reason, experience, and the general tenor of reve- 
lation. 

(1) From this doctrine it would follow, either that all whose judg- 
ments are convinced of the truth of Christianity, by Christ and his 
apostles, immediately embrace salvation, or some genuine believers are 
not saved. The former position is contrary to the historic fact; the 
latter is contrary to the gospel promise, 

(2) This doctrine appears to be inconsistent with the depravity and 
the native inability of man to do any thing toward salvation, without 
divine grace imparted. For if faith be the condition of salvation, as 
all adimit, and if it be the natural result of a mental exercise in the 
examination of testimony, then it will follow that, as man can exercise 
his intellect at pleasure, independent of aid from divine influence, he 
may believe of himself, and be saved by the mere exercise of his natu- 
ral powers. According to this idea, to pray for faith, or for the increase 
of faith, would be absurd; for all that would be necessary would be an 
increase of diligence in the study of the evidences of Christianity, which 
might be effected as well without prayer as with it. 

(3) Again: this view of the subject would imply that no man can 
examine the evidences of Christianity so as to perceive their force, and 
study the doctrines of revelation so as to gain a general theoretical 
knowledge of their character, without being an evangelical believor or 
genuine Christian. This is contrary to the experience of thousands, 
To say that no man in Christendom has ever examined the evidences 
of Christianity, so as to arrive at the satisfactory conclusion in his mind 
that the gospel is true, except such as have embraced salvation, is to 
manifest a far greater regard for a favorite theory than for the plain 
testimony of experience, observation, and Scripture. 

The great Bible truth is, that man is a being possessed of moral as 
well as intellectual powers. He has a heart as well as a head; and 
God requires both in the exercise of evangelical faith. That faith 
which has its seat in the head, without reaching the heart, will never 
reform the life or save the soul. It will be as “sounding brass or a 
tinkling cymbal;” it may embrace “the form,” but will be destitute of 
“the power” of religion. The faith which consists in the assent of the 
understanding alone is the “dead faith” spoken of by St. James, which 
includes no works of obedience. The faith which, passing through the 
understanding, fixes its seat deep in the heart, and trusts or relies on. 


366 


ELEMENTS 


OF DIVINITY. 


(P. i. B. 4. 


Christ fer present salvation, is that faith which alone cau justify and 
save a sinful soul. 


Question 1. Is faith a prominent subject 


os 


j=) 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXVIII. 


in Scripture? 


. Is it a subject well understood ? 
. What is its etymological meaning? 
. What is implied in St. Paul’s defini- 


tion? 


. In what sense is faith the gift of 


God? 


. In what sense is it the act of the crea- 


ture? 


. In what sense do Antinomians hold 


this subject? 


. How is their notion disproved? 


In what sense is God the author of 
faith? 


. Name some of the principal texts 


relied on in favor of the Antino- 
mnian view. 
How are they explained? 


12. 
13. 
14. 


15. 
16. 


We 
18. 
19. 


Are there degrees in faith? 

How is this proved? 

Through what channel is faith de- 
rived? 

How is this proved? 

Upon what ground, or foundation, 
is faith based? 

How is this proved from Scripture? 

How have theologians divided faith 

What are the two leading views in 
reference to the nature of justify- 
ing faith? 


. By whom has the first been adopted? 
. Who have adopted the second # 
. How can it be proved that saving 


faith implies more than mental 
assent? 


. What serious difficulties encumber 


the opposite theory? 


Oh. xxviii.] JUSTIFICATION—1TS NATURE CONSIDERED. 367 


CHAPTER XXVIII. 
JUSTIFICATION—ITS NATURE CONSIDERED 


THE inquiry upon which we are now about to enter is of the deepest 
interest to all mankind. How may a fallen sinner recover from the 
miseries of his lapsed state? This was substantially the ques:ion pro- 
pounded with so much feeling by the convicted jailer to the imprisoned 
apostles: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And from the earliest 
ages there may be seen, in the history of all nations, evidences of the 
general concern of the wisest and most serious of mankind for a satis- 
factory knowledge of a certain and adequate remedy for the evils of the 
present state. 

The best informed among the heathen have generally exhibited some 
correct notions in reference to the connection between natural and 
moral evil. In their zealous pursuit of some mode of escape from the 
miseries and calamities “that flesh is heir to,” they have generally 
adopted the principle, that natural evil is the effect of moral evil. Hence 
their systems of philosophy and morals, their rigorous discipline and 
painful austerities, adopted and pursued with the vain hope that by 
these means they could eradicate from the soul the principle of evil, 
destroy the dominion of vice, and, by a restoration of the disordered 
moral faculties of man, prepare him for the enjoyment of pure and 
uninterrupted felicity. But every effort of human reason and philosophy 
to discover a mode of deliverance from the thraldom of sin, however 
flattering it may have appeared for a season, has terminated in disap- 
pointment or despair. 

The light of nature may exhibit in its huge deformity the disease of 
sin; but an adequate remedy it has never been able to descry. It can 
lead man to the contemplation of what he is; it can show him his 
sinful and miserable condition, and teach him to sigh over his misfor- 
tunes; but it can never unfold the scheme of redemption, and teach him 
to smile at the prospect of a blissful immortality. Tosupply this grand 
desideratum, revelation comes to our aid. God alone was able to 
devise, and be has condescended to make known, the plan by which “he 


868 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i b 4% 


can be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” In 
the present chapter, we propose a consideration of the Bible doctrine 
of JUSTIFICATION. : 

In discussing this subject, there are two leading inquiries naturally 
presenting themselves to view. First, What is implied in justification ? 
Secondly, How may it be obtained? We will consider these questions 
in their order. 

In this chapter, we will consider what is implied in justification. 

The Greek word rendered justification in the New Testament, is 
dtxaiworc, which means a judicial decision, or sentence of acquittal. The 
verb is dixdgw, which means to judge, to render sentence, pronounce just, 
etc. According to the etymology of the word, to justify, in the Bible 
acceptation, is to acquit by a judicial sentence or decision. 

I. The term is evidently ForENsic, having reference to law and judi- 
cial proceedings. There are, however, several different senses in which 
it may be taken. Referring to justification in a forensic sense, we would 
observe, that it may take place in three different ways. 

1. A person may be arraigned at the bar of justice to answer to a 
specific accusation ; but, upon the examination of the testimony, it may 
appear that he has not been guilty of the thing alleged against him: 
here he is justified by the force of testimony, and a correct administra 
tion will announce the decision accordingly. 

2. After the arraignment of a person before the bar of justice, to 
answer to a certain accusation, it may appear, in the investigation of the 
case, that, although the special charge alleged against him may be 
established by the evidence, it nevertheless is not contrary to the law: 
here he is justified by the force of law, and a correct administration will 
pronounce the sentence accordingly. 

3. A person may be arraigned at the bar of justice, tried and con- 
demned for a crime; yet the executive power of the government may 
remit the penalty: here he is justified on the principle of pardon. 

According to any of these three plans, a person may be justified in a 
civil sense. But in the scriptural acceptation of the subject, agreeably 
to what has already been established in reference to the fallen and 
guilty condition of all mankind, it is impossible that any can be justi- 
fied on either the first or second hypothesis; for all men stand justly 
charged with, and condemned for, the violation of God’s holy law. 
“All are concluded under sin;” and the Bible declares that “all have 
sinned ;” and that “all the world are guilty before God.” Therefore, if 
justification ever be obtained by any, it must be on the ground of PAR 
DON. Here is the only door of hope to a guilty world, 


Ch. xxviii.) JUSTIFICATION—ITS NATURE CONSIDERED. 369 


II. But we must inquire more particularly concerning the nature of 
that justification, on the ground of pardon, which the Scriptures develop. 

“Justification, in common language, signifies a vindication from any 
charge which affects the moral character; but in theology it is used 
for the acceptance of one by God who is, and confesses himself to be, 
guilty. ‘To justify a sinner,’ says Mr. Bunting, in an able sermon on 
this important subject, ‘is'to account and consider him relatively right- 
eous; and to deal with him as such, notwithstanding his past unright 
eousness, by clearing, absolving, discharging, and releasing him from 
various penal evils, and especially from the wrath of God, and the 
liability to eternal death, which by that past unrighteousness he had 
deserved; and by accepting him as if just, and admitting him to the 
state, the privileges, and the rewards of righteousness.’ Hence it appears 
that justification, and the remission, or forgiveness of sin, are substan- 
tially the same thing.” (Watson’s Bib. Dic.) 

We here insert the definition of justification as given in the Ninth 
Article of Religion in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church: 
“We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deserv- 
ings; wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome 
doctrine, and very full of comfort.” 

With the above general definition of justification before us, we now 
proceed to a more minute examination of its most important particu- 
lars. ; 

1. We will show from the Scriptures that justification means pardon, 
or the remission of sin. 

This will appear from the following scriptures :—Acts xiii. 38, 39: 
“ Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this 
man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that 
believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justi- 
fied by the law of Moses.” Rom. iii. 25, 26: “Whom God hath set 
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbear- 
ance of God; to declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he 
might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Rom. 
iv. 5-8: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that jus- 
tifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness; even as David 
describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth right- 
eousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are 
forgiven, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the man to whom the 
Lord will not impute sin.” 

24 


870 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 4 


In these quotations, “justification,” “the forgiveness of sins,” “the 
remission of sins,” and the “non-imputation of sin,” are all used as 
convertible terms—exegetical of each other; hence, in Scripture lan- 
guage, they are generally synonymous. This leading position here 
established, will be found to extend throughout the New Testament, 
wherever the subject of justification is presented, and bearing it in mind 
will tend greatly to facilitate the investigation. 

2. We proceed to remark, that justification is not an abrogation of la, 
by the exercise of prerogative. 

The covenant of redemption given to man after the Fall, though 
different from, is not contradictory to, the covenant of works, under 
which he was primarily placed. The language of the covenant of 
works was, “ Do this, and live ;” its condition was, perfect and perpetual 
obedience. The language of the covenant of redemption is, “ Believe, 
and be saved ;” its condition is, “ Faith which worketh by love.” The 
propounding of the covenant of redemption does not imply the abro- 
gation of the law of God as originally delivered to man; but only a 
suspension of its rigor, in perfect consistency with the honor of God, so 
as to admit a substitute instead of the actual culprits. But the fact 
that a substitute was at all required, is sufficient evidence that the law 
is not abrogated, but rather established—it is “magnified, and made 
honorable.” Although the law be suspended in relation to the full and 
immediate execution of the penalty denounced against man, yet it is 
not suspended in reference to Christ. He met the claims of justice, and 
made satisfaction, Therefore it is clear that justification implies no 
abrogation of law. It is not an arbitrary process, by which the guilty 
are pardoned and released at the expense of justice; but a wise and 
gracious arrangement, by which “God can be just, and the justifier of 
him which believeth in Jesus.” 

3. Justification is personal in its character. 

It is a sentence of acquittal, having respect to particular individuals; 
and in this respect is distinct from the general arrangement of mercy, 
by which all mankind are so far redeemed from the curse of the broken 
law as to be graciously placed under the covenant of redemption, so as 
to have the offer of eternal life, according to gospel terms. The placing 
of all men in a salvable state, under the covenant of grace, is a merci- 
ful legislative arrangement of God, in which a general promise is made 
and a general condition required. Justification is a judicial decision 
of God, under that gracious legislation in reference to particular indi- 
viduals, in view of the prescribed conditions having been complied with. 
“Justification presupposeth a particular person, a particular cause, a 


Ch, xxviii.] JUSTIFICATION—ITS NATURE CONSIDERED. 371 


condition performed, and the performance, as already past, pleaded; 
and the decision proceeds accordingly.” 

4. Justification is a work really performed—a sentence or decision that 
actually is passed upon individuals. 

The Antinomian notion, therefore, of “eternal justification,” is mani- 
festly absurd. If it be a decision or sentence at all, it must take place 
in time. A mere purpose in the mind of a judge, is no sentence. “A 
sentence is pronounced ; and a sentence pronounced and declared from 
eternity, before man was created, when no sin had been committed, no 
law published, no Saviour promised, no faith exercised—when, in a 
word, no being existed but God himself—is not only absurd, but impos- 
sible; for it would have been a decision declared to none, and therefore 
not declared at all; and if, as they say, the ‘sentence was passed in 
eternity, but manifested in time,’ it might from thence be as rightly 
argued that the world was created from eternity, and that the work of 
creation in the beginning of time was only a manifestation of that 
which was from everlasting. It is the guilty who are pardoned— He 
justifieth the ungodly ;’ guilt, therefore, precedes pardon; while that 
remains, so far are any from being justified, that they are ‘ under wrath,’ 
in a state of ‘condemnation,’ with which a state of justification cannot 
consist ; for the contradiction is palpable; so that the advocates of this 
wild notion must either give up justification in eternity, or a state of 
condemnation in time. If they hold the former, they contradict com- 
mon sense; if they deny the latter, they deny the Scriptures.” (Wat- 
son’s Institutes.) 

5. Justification being the pardon of sin, it is not a work by which we 
are made actually just or righteous. 

Justification changes our relation to law—it removes condemnation, 
but does not change our nature, or make us holy. “This is sanctifica- 
tion, (or, in its incipient state, regeneration,) which is, indeed, the imme- 
diate fruit of justification; but, nevertheless, is a distinct gift of God, 
and of a totally different nature. The one implies what God does for 
us through his Son; the other, what God works in us by his Spirit. So 
that, although some rare instances may be found wherein the terms 
justified and justification are used in so wide a sense as to include sanc- 
tification. also, yet in general use they are sufficiently distinguished 
from each other both by St. Paul and the other inspired writers.” 
(Wesley’s Sermons.) 

6. Keeping in view the definition given — that justification means 
the pardon of sin—it will be easy to distinguish between this blessing 
and regeneration, which is properly sanctification begun The one 


B72 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 4 


removes the guilt of past sin by pardon, the other “creates us anew 
in Christ Jesus,” that we “may go in peace, and sin no more.” But 
we are not to understand, from the fact of our pardon, that God views 
our past sins in a more favorable light than he did previously to our 
justification. Pardon cannot change their real nature. Still they are 
sins; and as such, are an abomination to the Lord. Nor can his 
immaculate nature view them in any other than their true character. 
The crime of a culprit is none the less from the fact that he has been 
pardoned. 

Pardon releases from punishment, but does not change either the 
character of the crime or of the criminal. A pardoned sinner is still 
viewed as having sinned, though saved by grace. His sins, considered 
in themselves, still deserve the wrath of God; but for Christ’s sake that 
punishment is remitted. Hence, when we use the word acquittal in con- 
nection with justification, we understand thereby, merely release or ex- 
emption from punishment, without changing in the least the nature of 
past sin, or the light in which it is contemplated in the abstract by the 
Divine Mind. 

By no fiction of law can we suppose that God ever looks upon sin 
as not being sin, or the sinner as never having sinned, because pardon 
has been vouchsafed. Indeed, the very nature of pardon requires that 
there be something rendering that pardon necessary. Were it other- 
wise, we might suppose the pardon to be forfeited by the sinner with 
impunity; for if the nature of his sins and his own character have been 
so changed that God can no longer view the sinner as having sinned, 
or his sins as being offensive in their nature, the sinner can derive no 
benefit from the pardon; nor could it be possible, under this view, for 
buch a thing as pardon to exist. 


Uh. xxviii.} JUSTIFICATION—ITS NATURE CONSIDERED. d73 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXVIII. 


Question 1. Have the nations of the 
earth generally manifested any con- 
cern in reference to their deliver- 
ance from sin and the miseries of 
life ? 

2. How does n.is appear? 

3. What has been the success of their 
schemes? 

4. What grand desideratum does revela- 
tion supply ? 

5. Give the etymology of justification. 

6. In what three different ways may a 
man be justified in a civil sense. 

7. Why can no one, in a Scripture sense, 
be justified on either the first or 
second plan? 

8 What does justification mean, as de- 
fined by Watson? 


9 


10. 


What is the definition given in the 
Methodist Discipline? 

What is implied in justification, ac- 
cording to the Scriptures? 


11. How is this shown ? 


12. How is it shown that justification 


does not imply the abrogation of 
law? 


. How does it appear that justifica- 


tion is personal ? 


. How does it appear that justification 


is a sentence actually passed? 


. How does this consist with the no- 


tion of eternal justification? 


- Does justification make us actually 


righteous? 
How is it distinguished from regen 
eration and sanctification ? 


B74 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi Be 


CHAPTER XAIX. 


JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED— JUSTIFICATION BY THE 
IMPUTATION OF CHRIST’S ACTIVE OBEDIENCE CONSIDERED. 


Havina discussed the nature of justification, we now proceed to con- 
sider the method by which it is to be obtained. Among those who profess 
to be guided by the Scriptures, there are several different methods or 
plans by which this blessing is said to be realized. 

1. Justification is said to be by the imputation of Christ’s active 
righteousness or obedience. 

9. It is said to be by the imputation of Christ’s-activeand_passive 
righteousness or obedience, taken together. 

3. It is said to be by_works alone. 

4. It is said to be by faith and works united, or taken together. 

5. It is said to be by faith alone. 

The last scheme is the one we believe to be taught in the Scriptures ; 
but we will examine each of them in the order just stated. 

I. Justification is said to be by the imputation of Christ's active right- 
cousness or obedience. 

This scheme has been advocated by high Calvinists, and lies at the 
foundation of Antinomianism. By it we are taught that Christ’s per- 
sonal obedience to the moral law of God is so imputed to the sinner as 
to be accounted his own, and that he is thereby justified in view of his 
having kept the moral law in Christ. Those who advocate this theory 
do not reject faith as being altogether unnecessary under the gospel ; 
they hold that it flows from a justified state, as an effect from a cause, 
and is the manifestation, or evidence, of justification. But they reject 
faith, and every thing else, as having any thing to do in justification, 
except the personal and active obedience of Christ to the moral law, 
imputed to the sinner as though he himself had thus obeyed. That 
this scheme is unscriptural and absurd, must be clearly obvious to such 
as will carefully weigh the following considerations : 

1. It is perfectly gratuitous, there being nota single text in the Bible to 
which we can appeal as having announced any such doctrine, 


Ch.xxix.)  JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 375 

It is true that it is said, in reference to Messiah, Jer. xxiii. 6: “And 
this is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteous- 
ness.” And St. Paul, in 1 Cor. i. 30, says that Christ “of God is made 
unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption ” 

In reference to these passages we remark, 1. There is no evidence 
that Christ’s personal righteousness is here referred to at all—it is 
rather “his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross.” 2. It is 
neither here asserted that Christ’s righteousness shall be ours, nor that 
it shall be imputed to us. Only it is said, “‘The name by which he 
shall be called is, The Lord our Righteousness ;” and, “He shall be 
made unto us righteousness,” etc. The plain meaning is, that he is the 
source, or fountain, from which our righteousness or justification is 
derived. But this is vastly different from saying that his keeping of the 
moral law is imputed to us, or to be acknowledged instead of our having 
kept it. Christ is said to be “the resurrection,” “ our life,” “ our peace,” 
etc. But surely we must not hence infer that his rising from the dead, 
his living, and his possession of peace, are to be imputed to us as though 
we had done these things in him, and had no right to any farther resur 
rection, life, or peace! And yet the argument is precisely the same it 
this and the former case. Indeed, the entire notion that Christ was ous 
representative in such close sense that what he did or suffered we did o1 
suffered in him, is flatly contradictory to the whole tenor of Scripture 
on the subject. It is nowhere said that we obeyed or suffered in Christ ; 
but the language is, “ He suffered for us.” The Scripture doctrine is, 
not that we obeyed in Christ, but that, through “his obedience unto 
death,” our disobedience is forgiven. 

2. This scheme involves a fiction and impossibility, nowhere counte- 
nanced in Scripture, and irreconcilable with the divine attributes. 

An all-wise and holy God must. view-things-as they really aree He 
never can consider one person as having performed an act, and at the 
same time as not having performed it. For the all-wise and holy One 
to consider any thing as being what it is not, or to consider any person 
as having done what he never did, is perfectly impossible and clearly 
absurd. 

I know it has been argued that there is no more absurdity implied in 
the active righteousness of Christ being imputed to us, than there is in 
our sins being imputed to him. But, we ask, in what sense are our sins 
imputed to Christ? Surely not in reference to the formality of fact. 
Some have even gone so far on this subject as almost to assume the atti- 
tude of blasphemy. It has been even said that “Christ was the grent- 
est sinner that ever lived.” This they drew as a necessary conclusivu 


3TU ELEMENTS GF DIVINITY. [Pru Bo 


from the principle which they had assumed—that all the sins of the 
whole world were so imputed to Christ, that, in the mind of God, he 
was considered to have actually committed them. 

In reference to such as have thus reasoned, we would say, at least, 
that their logic is better than their divinity. For, according to the 
principle assumed, the conclusion, shocking as it certainly is, would be 
perfectly legitimate. But the position is an absurd and inconsistent 
fiction. The sins of the world were never imputed to Christ with the 
formality of the fact, so that the Almighty looked upon Christ as actu- 
ally having committed them, or upon them as being formally and in 
fact his sins. They were only imputed to him in reference to their pen- 
alty. The sins were not made his, nor considered as such; but he 
endured the penalty due them—he suffered for them. Indeed, to suppose 
that they were made or considered his in the formality of the fact, would 
be to say that he suffered for his own sins, and not for the sins of others. 
Tt would overturn the vicarious nature of his death, and at the same 
time destroy the necessity of pardon. For if all the sins of the whole 
world were imputed to Christ as his sins, they cannot still be considered 
as the sins of the world; they, by this absurd fiction, have been passed 
over to Christ; and if so, they cannot still be considered as the sins of 
the world, as they were previously to the supposed imputation; and 
consequently there are no sins left upon the world to be pardoned ; for 
certainly I cannot need pardon, nor can the law punish me, for that 
crime which it does not consider as mine. 

But this entire position is absurd and unscriptural to the very center. 

3. The Almighty never could have considered the sins of the world 
so imputed to Christ as to be his; for we hear a “voice from the excel- 
lent glory, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 
In no sense could he be considered a sinner; but “the iniquity of all 
was laid upon him”—that is, the punishment which it deserved. Hence 
it now appears that, as the sins of the world were not imputed to Christ 
so as to be considered his, we cannot infer therefrom that the active and 
personal obedience of Christ is imputed to us so as to be considered 
ours in the proper sense, as though performed by us. As our sins were 
imputed to him in reference to the penalty, so his “obedience unto 
death” is imputed to us in reference to its benefits. This is the plain 
scriptural presentation of the subject. The Antinomian hypothesis, 
that God justifies the sinner by imputing to him the obedience of Christ 
to the moral law, and considering him as having thus obeyed in Christ, 
is only an idle dream, without reason or Scripture for its support, involv. 
ing an absurd fiction, irreconcilable with the divine character. 


Ch. xxix.] JUSTIFICATION—-FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 577 


“The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth; 
neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom to think that I am 
innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. 
He can no more confound me with Christ than with David or Abra 
ham.” (Wesley.) 

Again: “If what our Lord was and did is to be accounted to us in 
the sense just given, then we must be accounted never to have sinned, 
because Christ never sinned, and yet we must ask for pardon, though 
we are accounted from birth to death to have fulfilled God’s law in 
Christ; or if they should say that when we ask for pardon we ask only 
fer a revelation to us of our eternal justification or pardon, the matter 
is not altered; for what need is there of pardon, in time or eternity, if 
we are accounted to have perfectly obeyed God’s holy law? and why 
should we be accounted also to have suffered in Christ the penalty of 
sins which we are accounted never to have committed?” (Watson’s 
Institutes. ) 

Thus it is clear that the different parts of this monstrous fiction fight 
with each other. If, by the above kind of imputation, we transfer 
Christ’s personal righteousness to us, his sufferings for us are useless, 
and pardon is not needed. If our sins are, as above, imputed to him, 
then he suffered, not “for our sins,” but for his own; and the Bible 
becomes a book of silly dreams, or absurd and inconsistent fictions. 

4. This scheme of justification by the imputation of Christ’s personal 
obedience to the moral law, ts irreconcilable with the character of Christ's 
personal acts, and could not furnish us a righteousness adapted to our 
condition. 

The supposition is, that all that Christ did in his proper person is to 
be set to our account, or imputed to us as ours, so as to weave out a robe 
of perfect obedience exactly suited to our case. If, upon a comparison 
of his personal acts of obedience, or his righteousness, with the descrip- 
tion of righteousness, or the peculiar kind of moral obedience, required 
at our hands, it be found that the righteousness of Christ contains more 
thar we need, the robe thus woven for us will be found to be more than 
our strength may be able to bear; but, on the other hand, if, upon the 
comparison, it appear that the righteousness of Christ, or the obedience 
he rendered to the moral law, contains less than we need, the robe thus 
woven for us will not be sufficient to shelter our guilty heads from the 
sword of justice. Either a redundancy or a deficiency, or a redundancy 
in some respects and a deficiency in others, will evidence such an unsuit- 
ableness in this plan of justification as should cause us seriously to sus- 
pect that it is a plan of our uwn devising, and not the Heaven-stamped 


378 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pade B24 


method arranged by Infinite Wisdom for the justifeation of “the um 
godly.” 

Now, in turning our attention to this subject, we think it will be 
readily perceived that, while the righteousness of Christ, as above 
claimed by imputation, will be found to contain too much, in some re- 
apects, in other respects it will contain too little, to meet our exigencies. 

The greatest portion of the personal acts of Christ were of a very 
peculiar kind, such as never were, and never could be, appropriate to 
any being in the universe but himself. He appeared in our world in 
the peculiar character of God-man Mediator, and took upon himself the 
regalia of Prophet, Priest, and King, in a peculiar and exalted sense; 
and in the performance of the duties, and the exercise of the preroga- 
tives, of his official character, he went forth “ traveling in the greatness 
of his strength,” to do the will of Him that had sent him, in the accom- 
plishment of the stupendous work of the world’s redemption, exhibiting 
in his sublime career a train of magnificent doings and godlike achieve- 
ments, calculated at once to strike with awe and fill with amazement 
both heaven and earth. Will a mortal man indulge in aspirations so 
lofty, as to pretend that all these personal acts of the Saviour’s active 
obedience are, in the divine mind, considered as having been performed 
by us, that thereby we may be furnished with a robe of perfect obedi- 
ence, and thus stand justified before God? Surely actions like these, a 
righteousness of this peculiar and exalted kind, was never required at 
our hands: it contains vastly too much, and is far too exalted in its char- 
acter, to be appropriate to our condition. “ He, then, that assumeth this 
righteousness to himself,” says Goodwin, “and appareleth himself with 
it, represents himself before God, not in the habit of a just or righteous 
man, but in the glorious attire of the great Mediator of the world, whose 
righteousness hath heights and depths in it, a length and breadth, which 
infinitely exceed the proportions of all men whatever. Now, then, for 
a silly worm to take this robe of immeasurable majesty upon him, and 
to conceit himself as great in holiness and righteousness as Jesus Christ, 
(for that is the spirit that rules in this opinion, to teach men to assume 
all that Christ did unto themselves, and that in no other way, nor upon 
any lower terms, than if themselves had personally done it,) whether 
this be right, I leave to sober men to consider.” (Treatise on Justifica- 
tion.) 

As we have seen, the personal righteousness of Christ, in one sense, is 
too exalted, and contains vastly too much, to be adapted to our condi- 
tion, so, in another sense, it contains too little. Infinitely perfect as the 
moral and personal obedience of Christ was, as pertaining to his own 


Ub. xxix.) JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 379 


immaculate character, yet, if we attempt to substitute it for that obedi- 
ence to moral law which duty enjoins upon us, we should perceive it, in 
a variety of particulars, not suited to our case. 

There are many circumstances and relations in life which never per- 
tained to the Saviour, requiring the performance of peculiar moral 
obligations, These obligations which rest upon us, and in the neglect 
of which the law will hold us guilty, the Saviour never performed. Of 
this class, we might mention parental and conjugal obligations, the 
reciprocal obligations between master and servant, and magisterial 
and official duties of various kinds. Here we find not only an endless 
variety of items under a particular class, but entire classes of duties, 
which the Saviour was never in a situation to perform. Can he who is 
deficient in his righteousness in- any of these particulars, plead the per- 
fect obedience of Christ? Can the parent or the master who is delin- 
quent in reference to the peculiar duties of that relation, refer to the 
moral obedience of Christ, and find, in the history of his life, the dis- 
charge of the specific obligation with the neglect of which he stands 
charged? Surely not. 

We know it may be urged that, although the personal righteousness 
of Christ be wanting in reference to many particulars pertaining to 
us, yet it was perfect as a whole; there was no defect in it, so far 
as his own moral character was concerned; and_ this obedience, 
which was perfect in the aggregate, may be imputed in the aggregate 
to us. 

In reply to this, we would say, that the strictness of law can admit 
no such fulfillment in the aggregate. The legal requirements are spe- 
cific; and the sentence against the delinquent is equally particular and 
minute. In righteousness based upon pardon in view of satisfaction 
rendered, there may be admitted as satisfaction something equivalent 
to, though in some respects different from, what the law required; but 
where righteousness is claimed upon the ground of actual fulfillment 
of law, to plead the equivalency of one action, or of one course of 
duties, to another, is perfectly inadmissible. The law can admit no such 
commutation, but must exact perfect conformity to every jot and tittle 
of its precepts; and he that “offends in one is guilty of all.” 

Thus it appears that justification cannot be based on the personal 
righteousness of Christ imputed to us as our own; because in some 
respects it contains too much, and in other respects too little, to be ap- 
propriate to our peculiar exigencies. 

5. Next, we observe that this scheme of justification is objectionable. 
because it bases the whole matter upon actual obedience.to the moral law, 


380 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 4 


instead of placing it on the ground of pardon, in view of the meritorious 
death of Christ, as the Scriptures expressly teach. 

(1) That the scheme of justification in question is fatally defective, 
for the reason just stated, will be obvious when we reflect that there is 
no Bible truth more prominently and explicitly recognized than this 
that our salvation is to be attributed to the Saviour’s “ obedience unto 
death.” Now, if we ground our justification on Christ’s personal obe- 
dience to the moral law, it will be, not a comment on the plan of sal- 
vation as clearly revealed in the Bible, but an invention of our own 
Is it not to be regretted, if men must invent divinity, that they do not, 
at least, invent something less inconsistent and absurd in itself? The 
Scriptures nowhere attribute our justification to the moral purity of the 
Saviour’s life. This personal obedience to moral precept was essential, 
that he might present an example for our imitation; and also for the 
perfection of his own character, that he might be prepared to offer on 
the cross, for the sins of the world, a sacrifice “without blemish and 
without spot.” But it is no more to be considered as the direct ground 
of our justification than the obedience of Abraham or of Paul. 

(2) Indeed, this scheme proposes for man righteousness of a kind 
which it is utterly impossible for him ever to possess. Legal righteous- 
hess, or justification in view of law, must be one of two kinds—that is, 
it must either be based upon perfect obedience, or satisfaction. When 
once the Jaw is broken, perfect obedience is out of the question. There 
is, then, ne possible chance for justification in the sight of law, but by 
satisfaction — It will be like “ placing new cloth in an old garment” 
the breach must first be healed by satisfaction. After the first covenant 
had been broken, the law no longer demanded perfect obedience; that 
had been forever set aside by transgression: the demand then was for 
the execution of the penalty, or satisfaction for the breach. Christ sat- 
isfied for the breach, not by keeping the moral precepts, but by “ giving 
his life a ransom for many.” 

There is a twofold righteousness or justification—primary and ulti- 
mate. The former consists in perfect obedience to law; the latter in 
satisfaction for the breach of law. Justification in the former sense 
rests on the fact that we cannot be charged with having violated the 
command ; justification in the latter sense rests upon the fact that, though 
the law has been broken, satisfaction has been rendered. None can be 
Justified by the same law, and in reference to the same actions, in both 
these senses, at the same time; for when the law has been kept, satisfac- 
tion can have no room. Now the justification presented in the gospel 
must be of one or the other of these kinds. If we are justified by per 


Ch. xxix.{ | JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 381 
fect obedience, then we can admit no breach of law, and of course can 
neither plead satisfaction nor ask for pardon. If we plead satisfaction 
rendered, or ask for pardon, we thereby confess our guilt, and renounce 
justification on the ground of perfect obedience. 

(3) Again: justification cannot be by the personal obedience of Christ; 
for the law did not demand the obedience of another for us, but our 
own obedience. But even if we could admit that we had perfectly kept 
the law in Christ, yet we could not then be justified on the ground of 
perfect obedience; for still we have sinned in ourselves, and for this the 
law would still have its demands upon us. 

On the subiect in hand, we quote the following from an acute writer: 
“If our sins have been expiated by the obedience of the life of Christ, 
either a perfect expiation has been thus made for all of them, or an im- 
perfect one for some of them. The first cannot be asserted, for then it 
would follow that Christ had died in vain; for, as he died to expiate 
our sins, he would not have accounted it necessary to offer such an expi- 
ation for them, if they had been already expiated by the obedience of 
his life. And the latter cannot be maintained, because Christ has 
yielded perfect obedience to the law of God; wherefore, if he have 
performed that for the expiation of our sins, he must necessarily, 
through that obedience, have expiated all of them perfectly.” (Pis- 
cator. ) 

But hear the language of St. Paul on this subject :—Gal. ii. 21: “If 
righteousness be by the law, then Christ died in vain.’ This whole 
scheme of justification by the active obedience of Christ drives neces- 
sarily to the dreadful consequence here presented by the apostle. It 
allows no adequate reason whatever for the death of Christ. The 
apostle argues that justification by the law renders nugatory the death 
of Christ. And what, we ask, is this scheme of the imputed active 
obedience of Christ, but justification by law? Even if we admit that 
the moral law kept by the Saviour was different from that law spoken 
of by the apostle when he discards justification by the law, the argu- 
ment will only be the stronger for that admission ; for if justification by 
the Mosaic law renders the death of Christ unnecessary, how much 
more must justification by that superior law which the Saviour kept 
render the death of Christ unnecessary! The argument is plain and 
simple: if we are perfectly justified in the active moral »bedience of 
Christ, we can need no more. 

(4) Again: this scheme confounds the two covenants, and makes the 
covenant of grace, in every particular, the same as the covenant of 
works ; or, in other words, it denies that there is such a thing as the 


382 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 4. 


covenant of grace, and puts man under the same Jaw, and requires the 
same mode of justification, before the Fall and under the gospel. 

From the arguments which we have briefly sketched, we think it clear 
that a fallen sinner can never be justified by the imputation of Christ’s 
active obedience. This Antinomian scheme must be renounced as un- 
scriptural and absurd ; and we must look to some other quarter for that 
acquittal in the sight of God from our sin and guilt which alone can fit 
us for the enjoyment of happiness. The various other methods of jus- 
tification already named, we must reserve for a future chapter. On a 
subject of so much importance, we should endeavor to investigate with 
diligence and care, at the same time relying upon the teachings of 
Scripture, and invoking the illuminations of the Spirit. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXIX. 


Question 1. What five different plans of| 9. How does it appear that this 


justification have been presented? 


scheme confounds the two cov- 


2. Which contains the truth? enants? 
3. What is the first argument against | 10. Who have been the advocates of this 
jastification by the imputation of scheme? 
Christ’s active obedience? 11. Have they rejected faith altogether? 
t. What is the second? 12. What two kinds of righteousness are 
5. How is the argument illustrated ” described? 
6. What is the third? 13. How does it appear that they can- 
7. How is it illnstrated ? not consist together? 
8 What is the fourth, and low is it il- | 14. How does it appear that no man van 
lustrated ? be justified by the former? 


Ch. xx»., JUSTIFICATION—-FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 283 


CHAPTER XXX. 


JUSTIFICATION — FALSE THEORIES REFUTED — JUSTIFICATION BY 
CHRIST'S ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE TAKEN TOGETHER, 
CONSIDERED. 


In the preceding chapter, we proceeded so far in the investigation of 
the different methods of justification which have been advocated, as to 
examine, and, as we believe, show the absurdity of, the scheme which 
teaches justification by the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. 

The second method to be examined is, that which proposes justification 
by the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience, taken together. 

I, We notice the sense in which this doctrine has been taught. 

1. This is the scheme maintained by Calvin himself; and the great 
body of those since designated as Calvinists, have, in this particular, 
followed in his footsteps. That class of Calvinists, however, distin- 
guished as high Calvinists, as well as those called Antinomians, have 
contended strenuously for the scheme of justification by the imputation 
of Christ’s personal righteousness, which we have already considered. 

The scheme of Calvin, which we now propose to examine, differs from 
the Antinomian plan, as set forth in the preceding chapter, in but one 
particular—that is, it blends the passive with the active righteousness 
of Christ, making no distinction between them whatever; and presents 
this personal obedience of Christ, both active and passive, as being im- 
puted to the sinner in such sense as to be considered his, so as thus to 
constitute him righteous in Christ. 

Some able Arminian divines, such as Wesley, and even Arminius 
himself, although they disliked the terms used by Calvinists of that 
class who have advocated this scheme, yet, for the sake of peace, have 
been willing to allow that the phrase, “imputed righteousness of Christ,” 
might be used in such sense as to be admissible. But when they have 
proceeded to qualify and explain the sense in which they could use the 
phrase, tt appears that there has still been so important a distinction 
between their understanding of the subject and that of Calvinists, that 
the latter could not be willing to adopt the limitations and qualifica 
tions of the former. 


354 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.4 


That we may have a clear view of the real point of difference be- 
tween them on this subject, we will first present the sentiment of Cal- 
vin in his own words, as collected from the third book of his Institutes: 
“We simply explain justification to be an acceptance by which God 
receives us into his favor and esteems us as righteous persons; and we 
say it consists in the remission of sins and the imputation of the right- 
eousness of Christ.” “He must certainly be destitute of a righteousness 
of his own who is taught to seek it out of himself. This is most clearly 
asserted by the apostle when he says: ‘He hath made him to be sin for 
us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God 
in him.’ We see that our righteousness is not in ourselves, but. in 
Christ. ‘As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so 
by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ What is plae- 
ing our righteousness in the obedience of Christ, but asserting that we 
are accounted righteous only because his obedience is accepted for us 
as if it were our own?” 

From these words of Calvin, it will be seen that he holds to imputa- 
tion in the strict and proper sense—in such sense that the righteous- 
ness of Christ is considered formally our own. The only difference to 
be seen between this and the scheme already refuted is, that Calvin 
makes no distinction between the active and passive righteousness of 
Christ. 

2. We will now present a few quotations from leading Arminians on 
this subject, that we may see wherein they differ from Calvin. 

In Mr. Wesley’s sermon on “The Lord our Righteousness,” he uses 
these words: “ But when is this righteousness imputed? When they 
believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is 
imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes. But in 
what sense is this righteousness imputed to believers? In this: all 
believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake of any thing in 
them, or of any thing that ever was, that is, or ever can be, done by 
them, hut wholly for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered 
for them. But perhaps some will affirm that faith is imputed to us for 
righteousness. St. Paul affirms this; therefore I affirm it too. Faith 
is imputed for righteousness to every believer—namely, faith in the 
righteousness of Christ; but this is exactly the same thing which has 
been said before; for by that expression I mean neither more nor less 
than that we are justified by faith, not by works, or that every believer 
is forgiven and accepted merely for the sake of what Christ had done 
and suffered.” 

In reference to this sermon, Mr. Watson very justly remarks, that. it 


Uh. xxx.}  JUSTIFICATION—-FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 386 


“is une of peace; one in which he shows how near he was willing to 
approach those who held the doctrine of Calvin on this subject ;” yet 
we think the point of difference is quite palpable. Calvin teaches im- 
putation in a strict and proper sense; so that the obedience of Christ is 
accepted for us as if it were our own; whereas Wesley teaches impu- 
tation in an accommodated sense. He holds that the righteousness of 
Christ is imputed to us in its effects—that is, in its merits: we are justi 
fied by faith in the merits of Christ; or, in other words, we are justified, 
“forgiven and accepted, for the sake of what Christ hath done and 
suffered for us.” It amounts to no more than this: that the meritorious 
sacrifice of Christ is the eters upon which God pardons the sinner 
when he believes. 

The sense in which Arminians view this subject is very clearly 
expressed by Goodwin thus: “If we take the phrase of imputing 
Christ’s righteousness improperly, viz., for the bestowing, as it were, 
of the righteousness of Christ, including his obedience, as well passive 
as active, in the return of it—that is, in the privileges, blessings, and 
benefits purchased by it—so a believer may be said to be justified by 
the righteousness of Christ imputed. But then the meaning can be no 
more than this. God justifies a believer for the sake of Christ’s right- 
eousness, and not for any righteousness of his own. Such an imputation 
of the righteousness of Christ as this, is no way denied or questioned.” 
(On Justification.) Ls 

“ Between these opinions as to the imputation of the righteousness 
of Christ, (as Mr. Watson observes,) it will be seen that there is a man- 
ifest difference, which difference arises from the different senses in which 
the term imputation is taken. The latter takes it in the sense of 
accounting or allowing to the believer the benefit of the righteousness 
of Christ, the other in the sense of reckoning or accounting the right- 
eousness of Christ as ours—that is, what he did and suffered is regarded 
as done and suffered by us” 

II. As we think the Calvinistic notion on this subject is now sufli- 
ciently clear and distinct from the Arminian view, we will endeavor 
briefly to examine its claims in the light of Scripture and reason. 

It will be found, on close examination, that most of the arguments 
presented in opposition to the first notion of imputation, are, with a little 
variation, equally applicable to this scheme. 

1. This notion of imputation, by the way in which it blends the active 
and passive righteousness of Christ, appears either to confound the two in 
a manner inconsistent with the Scripture account of the subject, or to present 
us with a righteousness not adapted to our condition. 

25 


386 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B. 4 


We know it has been admitted by the best Arminian writers that 
the active and the passive righteousness of Christ are not separated in 
Scripture, and that they ought not to be separated by us. All this we 
concede; yet there is certainly a differeuce between blending or uniting 
them so as still to preserve the real and distinct nature of each, and so 
blending or uniting them as utterly to confound them, and destroy all 
distinction in their nature. The former sense Arminians admit; the 
latter seuse the Calvinistic scheme implies. As this scheme teaches th ss 
we are justified by the imputation of Christ’s active and passive right- 
eousness to us as our own, it must imply either, 1. That we are hereby 
furnished with an active and a passive justification—that is, that Christ 
both kept the moral law and suffered for us, in place of our keeping it 
and suffering the penalty for having broken it; or, 2. It must imply 
that Christ’s active and his passive righteousness are taken as a whole, 
and constitute, in the same undivided sense, that satisfaction to justice 
by the imputation of which we are pardoned or justified. If the for- 
mer be the meaning, it presents us with a righteousness not adapted to 
our condition; if the latter be the construction, the active and the 
passive righteousness of Christ are confounded in a manner inconsistent 
with the Scripture account of the subject. 

In reference to the former interpretation, we remark, that to say that 
Christ kept the moral law in place of our keeping it, and also suffered 
in our place the penalty for having violated it, implies that we were 
required perfectly to keep the law, and then to suffer the penalty for its 
violation also, which is absurd. We could not be required to do both. 
So far from the law requiring perfect obedience and suffering both, it 
could only inflict suffering in our default of perfect obedience. There- 
fore, as we could not need a righteousness embracing both these branches, 
it follows that if Christ wrought out for us a righteousness of this two- 
fold character, it was not adapted to our condition. Again: admitting 
that we could need a righteousness of this kind, the moral acts of 
Christ, as we saw in the examination of the former theory of imputa- 
tion, in some respects contain too much, and in other respects too little, 
to suit our exigencies, 

In reference to the latter interpretation we remark, that to suppose 
that the active and passive righteousness of Christ are to be taken 
together as a whole, constituting, in the same undivided sense, that sat- 
isfaction to justice by the imputation of which to us as our own we are 
pardoned, would so confound the moral and personal acts of Christ 
with his sufferings, as to make no distinction between them—which is 
contrary to Scripture. For, although it be true that the active and the 


Ch.xxx.]  JUSTIFICATION—-FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 387 


passive righteousness of Christ are both united, and both essential to 
constitute a satisfaction, in view of which we may be pardoned, yet 
they are not essential in precisely the same sense. The sufferings of 
Christ were directly essential, as satisfying the claims of justice by 
enduring what was accepted instead of the specific penalty denounced ; 
the active obedience of Christ was indirectly essential, as giving perfec- 
tion and dignity to the character suffering, that thereby his sufferings 
might have power to satisfy. Hence, properly speaking, the moral 
obedience of Christ was only essential in making satisfaction to justice, 
as it was necessary that the character suffering should be possessed of 
every perfection, in order to render his sufferings available. 

The divinity of Christ was just as essential, and essential in the same 
sense, in rendering an adequate satisfaction to law and justice, as his 
active obedience; but will any one say that the divine nature of our 
blessed Lord was imputed to us as our own, or that God accounted us 
as actually possessing the infinite attributes of the Godhead? And yet 
it is quite clear that the divinity and moral obedience of Christ sustain 
the same relation to his atonement. They give dignity and value to 
that “obedience unto death” which satisfied for sin; but they consti- 
tuted no part of the penal infliction of justice. In the Scriptures, 
Christ is said to have suffered “ for us”—that is, in our stead; but he 
is nowhere said to have possessed pruper divinity, or to have obeyed the 
moral law “ for us,” or in our stead. The truth is, he possessed divinity, 
and obeyed the moral law for himself: this was essential to his charac- 
ter as Mediator; but he suffered “for us;” and to say that the moral 
obedience of Christ is to be imputed to us as our own, and that it, in 
the same sense with his sufferings, constitutes that satisfaction to justice 
in view of which we are pardoned, is a confounding of the active and 
the passive obedience of Christ, implied in the Calvinistic scheme, which 
the Scriptures do not sanction. 

2. This scheme of imputation implies the same absurd fiction em- 
braced in the former one—that is, that the all-wise and infinite Being 
should consider the acts and sufferings of another as formally and de facto 
our own. 

All that was said on this subject in reference to the Antinomian 
scheme, applies with equal force against the theory of Calvin; hence 
we add no more here upon that point. 

3. Lastly, we remark, that this, as well as the former scheme, 7s per- 
feetly gratuitous; there being no Scripture which, by any fair interpreta 
tion, affords it the least countenance. 

Although we have admitted that the phrase “imp ted righteousness 


388 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.de Boe 


of Christ” might, with proper explanations, be used in a good sense, yet 
it may be worth while here plainly to assert that there is in Scripture no 
authority either for the expression or for the Calvinistic interpretation 
on the subject; and therefore it were better that both be discarded. 
In those Scriptures mainly relied upon as teaching the Calvinistie 
notion of imputation, such terms are used as “impute” or “ imputed,” 
“the righteousness of God,” “clothed with garments of’ salvation,” 
“robes of righteousness,” “ white linen, the righteousness of the saints,” 
“putting on Christ,” etc. But in every case a fair exegesis of the text, 
in consistency with the context, will clearly show that nothing like the 
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us as our own for justification is 
taught. And— 

(1) We remark, in reference to impute and imputation, that these 
terms are never used as implying the imputation of something pos- 
sessed by, or done by, one person to another as his own. But, on 
the contrary, these words are always spoken in reference to some- 
thing possessed or performed by the person to whom the imputation is 
made. Thus it is said, “Abraham believed God, and it (the faith of 
Abraham) was imputed to him for righteousness.” Again: “But 
to him that worketh not, but believeth, his faith is imputed to him 
for righteousness” —that is, his own faith, and not the faith of another 
man. 

(2) “When a thing is said simply to be imputed, as sin, folly, and 
so righteousness, the phrase is not to be taken concerning the bare acts 
of the things, as if (for example) to impute sin to a man signified this, 
to repute the man (to whom sin is imputed) to have committed a sinful 
act, or as if to impute folly were simply to charge a man to have done 
foolishly ; but when it is applied to things that are evil, and attributed 
to persons that have power over those to whom the imputation is made, 
it signifieth the charging the guilt of what is imputed upon the head 
of the person to whom the imputation is made, with an intent of 
inflicting some condign punishment upon him. So that to impute siu 
(in Scripture phrase), is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man with a 
purpose to punish him for it.” (Goodwin on Justification.) 

Thus when Shimei (2 Sam. xix. 19) prayeth David not to impute 
wickedness unto him, he means merely to ask exemption from the pun- 
ishment which his wickedness deserved ; and when the apostle says, “Sin 
is not imputed where there is no law,” te does not mean that sin is not 
sin wherever it may exist, for that would be a contradiction in terms; 
but merely that sin is not so imputed as that punishment is inflicted on 
the sinner. 


Ch. xxx] JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. 589 


(3) In those passages which refer to “the righteousness of God,’ ete., 
as connected with justification, the allusion is not to the active and 
passive righteousness of Christ, but to God’s method of justifying sin- 
ners under the gospel. This is evident from these words:—Rom. x. 
3,4: “For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going 
about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted them- 
selves unto the righteousness of God. Fv. Christ is the end of the law 
for righteousness to every one that believeth.” And Rom. iii. 21, 22: 
“ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being 
witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God, 
which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them. that be- 
lieve; for there is no difference.” Here it is undeniable that “the right- 
eousness of God” spoken of is God’s method of justifying sinners under 
the gospel by faith in Christ. 

(4) In those scriptures referring to “robes of righteousness,” “ putting 
on Christ,” etc., it is very evident from the context that they relate 
either to temporal blessings, habitual holiness, or to the future rewards 
of the saints; and in no case is there the least evidence that they refer 
to the obedience of Christ imputed to the saints as their own. 

There are other passages that might be named as having been quoted 
by Calvinists to sustain their favorite dogma of imputation; but we have 
presented what appear to be the most pointed, except it be one more, 
which, as being a peculiarly favorite text with them on this point, we 
have reserved to the last. It is Rom. v.19: “For as by one man’s 
disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall 
many be made righteous.” Here it has been argued that the obedience 
of Christ is imputed to believers in the same sense as the disobedience 
of Adam is imputed to his posterity ; and assuming that Adams sin is 
so imputed to his posterity as to be considered formally their own, Cal- 
vinists have rallied around this passage as a triumphant proof of their 
notion of imputation. To this we shall reply in the language of the 
learned Goodwin : 

“To come home to the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, I 
answer, first, that either to say that the righteousness of Christ is 
imputed to his posterity, (of believers,) or the sin of Adam to his, are 
both expressions at least unknown to the Holy Ghost in the Seriptures. 
There is neither word, nor syllable, nor letter, nor tittle, of any such 
thing to be found there. But that the faith of him that believeth is 
imputed for righteousness, are words which the Holy Ghost useth. But, 
secon lly, because I would make no exception against words, farther 
than necessity enforceth, I grant there are expressions in Scripture con 


890 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. ([P. i. B.4 


cerning both the communication of Adam’s sin with his posterity, and 
the righteousness of Christ with those that believe, that wil! fairly 
enough bear the term imputation, if it be rightly understood, and 
according to the use of it in Scripture upon other occasions. But as it 
1s commonly taken and understood by many, it occasions much error 
and mistake. Concerning Adam’s sin, or disobedience, many are said 
to be ‘msde sinners by it,’ and so, ‘by the obedience of Christ,’ it is 
said (in the same place) ‘that many shall be made righteous;’ but if 
men will exchange language with the Holy Ghost, they must see that 
they make him no loser. If, when they say ‘Adam’s sin is imputed to 
all unto condemnation,’ their meaning be the same with the Holy Ghost, 
when he saith, ‘that by the disobedience of one many were made sinners,’ 
there is no harm done; but it is evident, by what many speak, that the 
Holy Ghost and they are not of one mind touching the imputation or 
communication of Adam’s sin with his posterity, but that they differ as 
mych in meaning as in words. If, when they say ‘Adam’s sin is 
imputed to all unto condemnation,’ their meaning be this: that the 
guilt of Adam’s sin is charged upon his whole posterity, or that the 
punishment of Adam’s sin redounded from his person to his whole 
posterity, a main part of which punishment lieth in that original defile- 
ment wherein they are all conceived and born, and whereby they are 
truly made sinners before God —if this be the meaning of the term 
imputation when applied to Adam’s sin, let it pass. But if the meaning 
be that that sinful act wherein Adam transgressed when he ate the for- 
bidden fruit is in the letter and formality of it imputed to his posterity, 
so that by this imputation all his posterity are made formally sinners, 
this is an imputation which the Scriptures will never justify.” (Treatise 
on Justification.) A 

So in the same manner, the righteousness or obedience of Christ 
is imputed to us, not by considering it ours in the letter and formality 
thereof, but by admitting us to share in its merits, blessings, and _privi- 
leges. From what has been said, we think it will appear evident that 
the Calvinistic scheme of justification by the imputation of Christ’s 
active and passive obedience to us as our own, must be abandoned as 
inconsistent with the Scriptures. And as we have seen that neither 
the doctrine nor the phraseology employed is sanctioned by the Bible; 
and as the latter is so liable to abuse, sliding so easily into all the 
absurdities of Antinomianism, it deserves to be at once and forever 
abandoned. 


Ch. xxx.] JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. OY) 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXX. 


Question 1. Who have been the advo- | 5. How does it appear that this scheme 


cates of the scheme of justification either confounds in an unscriptural 
by the imputation of Christ’s active manner the active and passive 
and passive obedience? righteousness of Christ, or provides 
2. In what does this differ from the An- us a righteousness unadapted to our 
tinomian plan? condition? 
3. Have Arminians admitted the use of | 6. Does this scheme imply the same ab 
the phrase “imputed righteousness” surd fiction as the former one? 
at all? 7. How does it appear that it is per 
4 What is the real point of difference fectly gratuitous? 


between Calvinists and Arminians 
on this subject? 


892 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [Pu BA 


CHAPTER XXXI. 


JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED—JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS 
ALONE, AND BY FAITH AND WORKS UNITED, CONSIDERED. 


Tue third method of justification which we propose to examine, is that 
which teaches that we are justified by works alone. 

Justification by works alone may be understood in several different 
senses. 

1. It may mean justification by perfect obedience to the original law 
of God. This, as we have already shown, is absolutely impossible to a 
fallen sinner. The condition of the first covenant being “ Do this, (in 
your own person,) and live,” and “Cursed is every one that continuetl 
not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them, 
it will hence follow that, as the apostle declares that “all have sinned,” 
and “all the world are guilty before God,” to be justified by works of 
perfect obedience to the first covenant, or original law of God, is abso- 
lutely impossible. 

2. Justification by works alone may mean a perfect conformity to that 
moral code or law given to the Jews in their own Scriptures, and to the 
Gentiles by the influence of the Holy Spirit given unto them, to “show 
the work of the law written in their hearts.” 

This is substantially the same law that was given to Adam, and, in 
reference to its subject-matter, is identical with the covenant uf works, 
which is still in force, not as a principle of justification, bu’ asa rule 
of life, by which to estimate the moral standing of man, and exhibit 
the magnitude of his delinquencies in the sight of God; for. as the 
apostle says, “ By the law is the knowledge of sin.” In reference to 
this law, it was that the Jews, in St. Paul’s day, set up a claim to jus: 
tification by works. 

The great argument in the Epistle to the Romans is to show the 
utter impracticability of this scheme of justification. We need only in 
this place quote the words in which the apostle sums up his grand cons 
clusion, or sets forth his main position, thus: “Therefore by the deeds 
of the law there shafl no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is 
the knowledge of sin.” This one passage, to such as are willing to 


Ch. xxxi.]  SUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORISS RESUTED. 393 


abide by the teachings of inspiration, must forever explode the old Jew- 
ish scheme of justification by the works of the moral law; and as we 
know not that any respectable authority in the Christian Church since 
the apostle’s days has pleaded for justification in professedly the same 
way, we may pass this scheme without farther notice. 

3. Justification by works alone may be understood as implying justifi- 
cation by works of evangelical obedience under the gospel, or those works 
which proceed from faith, and are performed by the assistance of the 
Holy Spirit. 

This scheme has had some advocates in different ages of the Church, 
and in modern times has found an able patron in Bishop Bull, the 
impress of whose views upon this subject is still perceptible upon many 
of the clergy of the Church of England. 

The grand argument in support of this scheme has been founded 
upon the language of St. James, who, it is contended, expressly teaches 
justification by works; and the effort has been made to reconcile St. 
Paul to St. James, by alleging that the former, when he denies the pos- 
sibility of “justification by works,” refers only to works of obedience to 
the Mosaic law; and that, when he teaches justification “by faith,” he 
means the works which spring from faith. We reserve the refutation 
of this and every other scheme of justification by works, till we come 
to examine the doctrine of justification by faith only; since the estab- 
lishment of the latter will disprove the former. They cannot stand 
together. 

The fourth scheme of justification to be considered, is that which teaches 
that we are justified by faith and works taken together. 

This scheme has had a respectable number of advocates, but they 
have differed considerably among themselves in reference to the kind 
of works which are united with faith in justification, and the degree of 
importance which should be attached to particular works. 

Dr. Macknight, perhaps one of the ablest defenders the scheme has 
ever had, presents a statement of the doctrine in the following words: 
“And surely it belongeth to God to appoint what conditions or means 
of justification seemeth to him good. Now that he hath actually made 
faith anc works, not separately, but jointly, the condition of justifica- 
tion, both Paul and James have declared.” But Dr. Macknight under- 
stood justification to mean, not the pardon of sin in this world, but the 
sentence of acquittal to be pronounced upon the righteous at the day 
of final judgment. Hence, according to him, justification is a blessing 
which no man can attain in this life. 

Others, however, who have held to justification by faith and works 


304 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {Pim 


have admitted that it takes place in this life; and not a few have 
attached peculiar importance to some particular works, especially to the 
ceremony of Christian baptism. This by some has been considered the 
great sine qua non in order to justification. It is true, they have not 
considered baptism available for justification in an adult, except it be 
preceded or accompanied by faith; but when connected with faith, they 
have considered that ordinance not only as the prescribed means, but 
also as the only legitimate evidence of justification. Indeed, so much 
importance has been attached to that ordinance in this connection, that 
it has been strenuously contended that without baptism there can be no 
remission of sin. It is difficult to determine, from the manner in which 
a certain class have expressed themselves, whether it would not be more 
correct to say that they hold to justification by works; for they certainly 
attach far more importance to baptism than they do to faith, inasmuch 
as they say that a proper faith may exist without justification, but a 
proper baptism cannot. 

Closely allied to this notion is the doctrine of the Roman Catholics 
on the subject of satisfaction, penance, etc. They not only hold that 
works are essential to the complete remission of sin, but they teach that 
they are meritorious. They confound justification with sanctification, 
and contend that we must be inherently righteous before we can be just 
in the sight of God; and this inherent righteousness, according to them, 
is derived from the merit of good works. Hence their peculiar views 
on the subject of penance, indulgences, purgatory, etc. 

But the full refutation of all these variant schemes of justification by 
faith and works united, we trust will be sufficiently apparent in the 
discussion of the scheme of justification by faith only. We will, how- 
ever, remark at this time, that the prima facie evidence of Scripture is 
against them, as we read nothing there in reference to justification by 
faith and works taken together: to be justified “by faith,” and to be 
justified “ by works,” are both terms used in Scripture; but justification 
by faith and works is a phrase not found in Holy Writ. We presume 
the advocates of this doctrine will not pretend that it is taught by St. 
Paul, and unless they can find something to sustain it in the Epistle 
of St. James, we know of no text in the Bible upon which they can 
base a plausible defense of their theory. But as that passage will be 
particularly examined in the discussion of justification by faith only, 
we will close the present chapter by presenting one leading objection to 
all these schemes of justification by works, and by faith and works—it is 
this : 

All these schemes are either based upon an entire misapprehension of the 


Ch. xxx1.j JUSTIFICATION—FALSE THEORIES REFUTED. BOE 


nature of justification as presented in Scripture, or else they labor wnder 
most of the difficulties connected with the schemes of imputation already 
eahibited. 

We have already shown that, in the Bible acceptation, to Justify is to 
pardon or forgive sin; or, in other words, it is a sentence by which the 
punishment due to sin is remitted. This is a great and prominent truth, 
most clearly presented in the New Testament; and most of the difficul- 
ties and inconsistencies on the subject of justification may be traced to 
a disregard of this leading principle; therefore we should, while on this 
subject, endeavor to keep it still in view. 

The proofs on this point already presented we think are very conclu- 
sive, but as there is scarce an erroneous scheme of justification but what 
must necessarily battle with this truth for its own existence, we beg 
leave at this time to ask a careful attention to the concluding part of the 
fourth chapter of 2 Corinthians. Here we learn that “reconciliation 
to God,” the “non-imputation of trespasses,” and being “made the 
righteousness of God,” are phrases that are all used as expressive of the 
same thing, and as synonymous with justification. The passage admits 
no other sensible interpretation. If, then, we admit that to Justify 
means to pardon or forgive sin, the schemes now in question are involved 
at once in inextricable difficulties, 

1. As justification means pardon, then, as the Scriptures declare, 
“God justifieth the ungodly,” for none others can need pardon. Hence 
we must be pardoned before we become righteous by personal obedi- 
ence or inherent holiness; therefore we cannot be Justified by those 
works of obedience which none but the righteous can perform, This 
would be to require us to do, in order to justification, what can only be 
done by such as are already justified, which is absurd. 

2. If we are justified by works at all, these works must either em- 
brace perfect obedience to the law of God, or they must not: if they 
do, then the law can demand no more, and we have no need for the 
death of Christ: if they do not, then we cannot be justified by them; 
for the law saith, “Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things 
which are written in the book of the law to do them.” 

3. If we are justified by faith and works taken together, then these 
works must either be performed before or after Justification. If they 
are performed before justification, then they must be performed while 
we are in unbelief; “ for all that believe are justified ;” and if in unbe- 
lief, they must be sinful ; for “whatsoever is not of faith is sin ;” and 
if so, it would follow that we are justified by sin, which is absurd. But 
if the works are performed after justification, then it will follow that 


396 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. B.4 


the effect precedes the cause, which is also absurd. Indeed, if we are 
justified by works of evangelical o' edience in connection with faith, it 
would seem inconsistent to say that we can be justified in this life; but 
if, with Dr. Macknight, we deny this, we deny the Scriptures. But we 
reserve the full refutation of these schemes for the next chapter. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXI. 


Question 1. In what three different | 9, Whatis the peculiarity of the Roman 


senses may justification by works Catholic view? 

alone be understood ? 10. What is the pruma fucie evidence 
2. How is the first seen to be impossible ? of Scripture in reference to these 
3. Who have advocated the second? plans? 
4. Who have advocated the third? 11. What leading objection is presented 
5. How does Bishop Bull endeavor to to them? 


reconcile St. Paul and St. James? | 12. How is this objection sustained ? 
6. Have the advocates for justification | 13, What proof is adduced in reference 


by faith and works been agreed to the Scripture meaning of justi- 
among themselves? fication ? 
7. What was the peculiar notion of Dr.| 14, What three difficulties are presented 
Macknight? as being connected with all these 
8. In what respect has peculiar impor- systems ? 


tance been attached to a particular 
work? 


Gh. xxii] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. 397 


CHAPTER XXXII. 
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY, ILLUSTRATED AND PROVED. 


In the preceding cha;ters we have considered an1 endeavored ta 
refute all the different methods proposed for the attainment of justifiea- 
tion, except the last, viz., justification by faith only, which we named as 
the method presented in the Scriptures. The present chapter, therefore, 
will be devoted to the consideration of justification by faith only. We 
think the evidence already presented contains a satisfactory refutation 
of all the different schemes of justification which we have considered ; 
but if we can succeed in establishing the position which we now pro- 
pose—that is, that justification by faith only is the only scheme which 
the Scriptures authorize—all other schemes will necessarily be thereby 
disproved, and should be discarded as being doubly refuted. 

If we can select any doctrine contained in the Scriptures as occupy: 
ing in the scheme of salvation a more prominent and important position 
than any other, it is the one now proposed to be established. The great 
principles upon which it is founded, and with which it is connected, 
extend throughout the entire gospel system, insomuch that a misappre- 
hension of this leading doctrine will necessarily interrupt the harmony 
of the parts, and destroy the symmetry of the entire scheme of redem p- 
tion. As if with a special eye to the importance of the subject, and as 
if God would exhibit a peculiar concern to render a serious error on so 
vital a point almost impossible, we find this doctrine not only plainly 
stated in the Scriptures, but it is repeated again and again in various 
places; it is particularly dwelt upon, presented in a diversity of aspects 
and sustained by a variety of arguments. 

But notwithstanding the explicitness and fullness of the Scriptures 
upon this point, as we have already seen, it is a subject on which there 
has, from the apostles’ day to the present time, been much controversy. 
St. Paul complains of the Jews of his day, that “they being ignorant 
of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own right. 
eousness,” were unwilling to “submit thernselves to the righteousness of 
God,” or to God’s plan of justification. Even so it has been the case, 
up to the present time, that the plan of salvation revealed jin Scripture, 


> 


898 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PinB 


which proposes unnerited pardon to the ungodly but penitent sinner, 
upon the simple condition of evangelical faith in the vicarious sacrifice 
of Christ, has not only had to contend against the settled enmity of the 
human heart, but many of the most learned and pious have, to some 
extent, misunderstood the true scriptural doctrine of justification by 
faith. Upon this, as well as upon every other doctrine of Christianity, 
the teachings of inspiration must be our guide; and we now appeal to 
their infallible testimony, with the strongest confidence of finding a sat- 
isfactory account of the doctrine before us. 

I, That we may perceive clearly the force of the Scripture proof that 
we are justified by faith only, we will first define the sense in which we 
understand that doctrine. 

On this subject, we first quote the clear and forcible language of Mr. 
Wesley. In his sermon on “Justification by Faith,” he speaks thus: 
“Surely the difficulty of assenting to the proposition that faith is the 
only condition of justification, must arise from not understanding it. 
We mean thereby thus much, that it is the only thing without which 
no one is justified—the only thing that is immediately, indispensably, 
absolutely, requisite in order to pardon. As on the one hand, though a 
man should have every thing else without faith, yet he cannot be justi- 
fied; so on the other, though he be supposed to want every thing else, 
yet if he hath faith, he cannot but be justified. For suppose a sinner 
of any kind or degree, in a full sense of his total ungodliness, of his 
utter inability to think, speak, or do good, and his absolute meetness 
for hell fire—suppose, I say, this sinner, helpless and hopeless, casts 
himself wholly on the mercy of God in Christ, (which, indeed, he can- 
not do but by the grace of God,) who can doubt but he is forgiven 
in that moment? Who will affirm that any more is indispensably 
required, before that sinner can be justified?” 

By faith as a condition of justification, we are not to understand that 
it is absolutely, and in every sense, the cause of justification. Far from 
it. The love, or grace, of God is the original moving cause. The effi- 
cient cause is the Holy Spirit, “who takes of the things of Jesus, and 
shows them unto us.” The meritorious cause is the death of Christ. 
The instrumental cause, on God’s part, is the word of God; but the 
conditional cause, on our part, is faith. 

As we have seen, justification by works, which implies perfect con- 
formity to the first covenant, is to us impossible: Christ hath satisfied 
for our breach of the first covenant, by suffering “for us,’ and we are 
now placed under the new covenant of grace. To become personally 
righteous under this covenant, we must comply with its conditions 


Ch. xxxii.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. 399 


God, who graciously placed us under this covenant, has a right to pre- 
scribe the condition upon which we shall be accepted under it. This, 
we have shown, is faith. By the satisfaction or atonement of Christ 
we are not to understand that men are absolutely and unconditionally 
freed from the demands of the covenant of works. They are only 
unconditionally freed so far as to be placed under the new covenant 
Those of whom conditions are required, can only be delivered from the 
curse of the law by complying with the condition of faith; hence 
Christ is said to be “the end of the law for righteousness to every one 
that believeth.” When we believe, faith is imputed to us for evangeli- 
cal righteousness. Had Jesus Christ done all that he did for sinners 
without prescribing faith as the condition of justification, faith then 
could not have been imputed to us for righteousness. It derives its 
efficacy from the appointment of God; and had the wisdom of God 
prescribed love to God, or any thing else, as the condition of pardon, 
instead of faith, it is very clear that love to God, or whatever else had 
been prescribed, would then have sustained the same relation to our 
Justification that faith now sustains. 

But the question may be asked, Are not other duties enjoined in 
Scripture as well as faith? and if so, how can it be said that we are 
justified by faith only? To this we may reply, that other duties, it is 
true, are enjoined, but the Scriptures nowhere make them, like faith, the 
absolute and invariable condition of justification. 

Indeed, as we have seen from the Scriptures that faith is the condition, 
in such sense that none can be justified without it, and all who have it 
are that moment justified, it necessarily follows that nothing else can 
be a condition, in the same sense, without a contradiction. Suppose, for 
illustration, that Christ had made the taking of the sacrament of the 
Lord’s-supper the condition of justification in the same sense in which 
we have proved faith to be the condition; then it would follow that 
none can be justified without partaking of that sacrament, and that all 
who do partake thereof are that moment justified. Now, is it not 
manifest that an individual might partake of the supper without faith? 
and if so, he must that moment either be justified, or not. If we say 
he 7s justified, then it follows that faith cannot be the condition of jus- 
tification in the sense specified; but if we say he ts not that moment 
justified, then it follows that partaking of the supper cannot be the 
condition of justification in the sense specified. The two conditions 
cannot be reconciled; they imply a manifest contradiction. 

If the Scriptures exhibit faith to be the condition of justification, in 
the sense above, then it follows that, unless the Scriptures flat] y contra 


400 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. b. 4 


dict themselves, they cannot teach that any thing else, separate and 
distinct from faith, is a condition in the same sense. And thus it is 
evident that, in showing that we are justified by faith, in the sense 
above, it is clearly implied that justification is by faith on/y—that is, 
faith is the thing made the condition of justification, in this important 
sense. 

Other things, such as repentance, prayer, etc., may be, in a correct 
w nse, said to be required; but it is only as they are connected with 
faith, and because they are thus connected, as being presupposed as 
necessary antecedents, as contained in it, as implied as its immediate 
fruits, or as necessary subservient means or consequents. In a principal 
action, all its parts, necessary antecedents, subservient actions, and 
immediate and necessary consequents, are properly implied. Thus: 
“Tf the besieged be bound by articles to surrender the town to the 
besiegers at such a time, it need not be expressed in the articles that 
they shall withdraw their guards and cease resistance—open the gates, 
and yield up this house, or that street: all this is implied clearly in the 
articles of capitulation.” Even so faith, the great condition of justifi- 
cation, may imply all the rest in a certain sense. 

Hearing the word and repentance may be necessary antecedents ; 
knowledge of Christ, assent to the truth of the gospel, relying on the 
merits of Christ, and coming to and receiving Christ as an almighty, 
all-sufficient, present Saviour, are necessary concomitants or properties 
of faith; denying ourselves and taking up our cross daily, hearing, 
praying, meditating, and attendance upon the ordinances of the gospel, 
may be connected with faith, either as antecedents or consequents. 
Yet none of these external means, nor all of them taken together, are 
made the condition of justification, in the same important sense in which, 
as we have seen, faith is presented. Except so far as some of them are 
synonymous with, or implied in, faith, they may all exist without jus- 
tification, or justification may take place in the absence of any or all 
of them. 

II. Justification by faith only, expressly proved by Scripture. 

1. The first class of texts*on which we rely embraces those passages 
in which faith is directly and expressly presented as the condition or means 
of justification. 

In Acts xiii. 39, we read: “And by him all that believe are justified 
from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of 
Moses.” Here justification is promised to “all that believe,” which 
clearly implies (if none can be justified without faith, as all will admit) 
that faith is presented as the condition. 


Ch. xxvii JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. 401 


In the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul treats expressly of the sub- 
ject of justification. From that masterly discourse we next make 
some quotations. Rom. iii. 26, 28, 30: “To declare, I say, at this time, 
his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which 
believeth in Jesus.” “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by 
faith without the deeds of the law.” “Seeing it is one God which shall 
justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” 
Rom. v. 1, 2: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with 
God, through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by 
faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory 
of God.” Gal. iii. 8, 9: “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would 
justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abra- 
ham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which 
be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” Gal. iii. 22-24: “ But 
the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith 
of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith 
came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should 
afterward be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to 
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” 

In all these passages, St. Paul most clearly and explicitly declares 
that justification is by faith. Now let it be remembered that in the 
Fpistles to the Romans and Galatians, from which the quotations are 
made, the apostle is expressly discussing the subject of justification, and 
is not the conclusion irresistible, that faith is presented as the condition 
of justification? If the apostle did not design to convey this idea, 
surely his language is well calculated to mislead. Had he meant that 
justification was either by works, or by faith and works united, why 
did he not so express it? The argument from this class of texts, in 
which quotations might be greatly multiplied, we think must be satis- 
factory with such as are disposed to abide by the plain declarations of 
inspiration. . 

2. Our second argument is based upon those passages which repre- 
sent what is manifestly synonymous with justification, as being through 
faith. 

This, it will readily be perceived, is substantially the same argument 
as the former, the only difference being that, in this argument, the term 
justification is not used; but if the terms used are of the same import, 
the evidence is quite as conclusive. 

The terms referred to, as used synonymously with justification, in the 
scriptures to be adduced, are the following :—“ Righteousness,” “The 
righteonsness of God,” “The remission of sins,” “The counting, or 

26 


402 ELEMENTS CF LIVINITY. [Pere B ss 


reckuning for righteousness,” “The imputation of righteousness,” “The 
non-imputation of sin,” “ Deliverance from condemnation,” etc. That 
these terms, in the passages we shall adduce, are synonymous with justi- 
fication, can scarcely be doubted. The evidence of this fact is palpable 
upon the face of the texts to be quoted. We will, however, say a few 
things respecting the second phrase presented, which has perhaps given 
rise to more controversy than any of the others. It is, “ The righteous- 
ness of God.” 

In reference to this phrase, which occurs in Rom. i. 17, Whitby 
remarks: “This phrase, in'St. Paul’s style, doth always signify the 
righteousness of faith in Christ Jesus’s dying or shedding his blvod for 
us.” Doddridge paraphrases it thus: “That is, the method which God 
hath contrived and proposed for our becoming righteous, by believing 
his testimony, and casting ourselves on his mercy.” Wesley, Benson, 
Clarke, Macknight, Watson, Stuart, and indeed the great body of 
learned commentators, perfectly accord with the exposition as quoted 
from Whitby and Doddridge. To this we might add the testimony of 
Paul himself, who, in Rom. iii. 22, gives precisely the same comment 
upon the phrase in question. “ Even,” says he, “the righteousness of 
God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ.” 

As we think a particular examination of each of the phrases pre- 
sented, so as to show that it is synonymous with justification, will be 
rendered unnecessary by the clearness of the evidence which the pas. 
sages to be quoted will exhibit, we proceed to present the Scripture 
testimony under this head. 

Rom. i. 17: “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from 
faith to faith ; as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” Rom. iii. 
21, 22, 25: “ But now the righteousness of God without the law is mani- 
fested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets: even the righteous- 
ness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon al! 
them that believe.’ “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, 
through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of 
sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” Rom. iv. 3, 4, 5, 9: 
“For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the 
reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh 
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted 
for righteousness.” “For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham 
for righteousness.” Rom. iv. 11, 138: “And he received the sign of 
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yei 
being ur circumcised; that he might be the father of all them tha 


Ch. xxxii.] JUSTIFICATION B\ FAITH ONLY. 403 


believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be 
tmputed unto them also.” “For the promise that he should be the heir 
of the world, was not to Abraham or to his seed, through the law, but 
through the righteousness of faith.” Tom. iv. 22-24: “And therefore it 
(faith) was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for 
his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it 
shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from 
the dead.” Rom. ix. 31, 32: “ But Israel, which followed after the law 
of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Where- 
fore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works 
of the law; for they stumbled at that stumbling-stone.” Rom. x. 4-10: 
“For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that 
believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, 
that the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the 
righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thy 
heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ 
down from above;) or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to 
bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith it? The word 
is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of 
faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the 
Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised him from 
the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” 
(ten. xv. 6: “And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord; and he counted 
" to him for righteousness.” Gal. iii. 6: “Even as Abraham believed 
God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Gal.v. 5,6: “ For 
we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For 
in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum- 
cision; but faith which worketh by love.” Phil. iii. 9: “And be found 
in him, not having mine own righteousness which is of the law, but that 
which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
faith.” Heb. xi. 7: Noah, it is said, “became heir of the righteousness 
which is by faith.” Acts x. 43: “To him give all the prophets witness, 
that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission 
of sins.” John iii. 18: “He that believeth on him is not condemned ; but 
he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed 
in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” 

We think it impossible for any unprejudiced mind carefully to 
examine the scriptures here quoted, without being satisfied that the 
terms, “ Righteousness,” “ Righteousness of God,” “ Remission of sins,” 
“Counting, or reckoning, for righteousness,’ “The imputation of 


404 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.4 


righteousness,” “The non-imputation of sin,” and “ Deliverance from 
condemnation,” all imply the same thing as justification; but as all 
these are said to be by, or through, faith, it necessarily follows that 
justification is by faith. 

3. Our third argument is based upon such passages as present what 
are necessary and inseparable concomitants of justification as being by, or 
through, faith. 

There are presented in the Scriptures several blessings, which, though 
distinct in their nature from justification, invariably accompany it, and 
never can exist but in connection with it. Now, it must be admitted 
that, if two or more things never exist except in connection with each 
other, whatever is indispensable to the existence of one must be indis- 
pensable to the existence of the others. Whatever would lead to the 
existence of one would necessarily lead to the existence of the others; 
or, in other words, whatever is the grand indispensable condition to the 
existence of the one, must sustain the same relation to the others. 

For illustration of this argument, we refer to the familiar relations of 
husband and wife. These relations necessarily imply the existence of 
each other. They are inseparable concomitants. Although the two 
relations are not identical—the husband is not the wife, nor the wife 
the husband—yet the relation of husband cannot exist without that of 
wife, nor the relation of wife without that of husband. Now, is it not 
clear from this, that whatever would necessarily lead to the existence 
of the one relation, would also lead to the existence of the other; and 
whatever would prevent the existence of the one relation, would neces: 
sarily prevent the existence of the other? 

Apply this principle of reasoning to the subject in hand: regenera: 
tion, adoption, and salvation, in a certain sense, are inseparable con- 
comitants of justification —the one cannot exist without the others. 
Whoever is justified, is born of God, or regenerated, adopted, and, in a 
certain sense, saved; and none can be regenerated, adopted, or se ved, in 
that sense, but the justified. From this it will follow that whatever 
leads to the one of these concomitant blessings, must lead to the others; 
and whatever would prevent the one, must prevent the others; or, in 
other words, whatever is the grand condition to the existence of the 
one, sustains the same relation to the others. 

Now, if we can show from the Scriptures that we are regenerated, 
adopted, and saved, through, or by, faith, it will necessarily follow that we 
are justified through, or by, faith. This, we think, will be evident from 
the following Scriptures :— 

Ron. i. 16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ; for it 


Ch. xxxii.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. 405 


is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the 
Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Eph. ii. 8: “For by grace are ye 
saved through fuith; aud that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” 
Luke vii. 50: “And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; 
gu in peace.” John xx. 31: “But these are written that ye might 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye 
might have life through his name.” Mark xvi. 16: “He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” 
Acts xvi. 31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
saved,” 2 Tim. iii. 15: “And that from a child thou hast known the 
holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through 
faith which is in Christ Jesus.” John i. 12, 13: “But as many as 
received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to 
them that believe on his name. Which were born, not of blood, nor of 
the wili of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Acts xv. 9: 
“And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by 
faith.” Acts xxvi. 18: “That they may receive forgiveness of sins, 
and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” 
Gal. iii. 26: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
Jesus.” 1 John v. 1: “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
dorn of God.” 1 John v. 10: “He that believeth on the Son of God 
hath the witness in himself.” 

From the preceding scriptures, it is undeniable that faith is the nec- 
2asary condition of regeneration, adoption, and salvation; but as these 
are inseparable concomitants of justification, it follows that faith is the 
necessary condition of justification. 

4. Our fourth argument is based upon such passages as show that jus- 
afication is by grace, and not by works, 

In Romans xi. 6, we have these words: “And if by grace, then 
it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be 
of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work.” 
From this scripture it is evident that grace and works are opposed to 
each other. Whatever is of grace cannot be of works, and whatever 
ia of works cannot be of grace. In Rom. iv. 16, we read: “Therefore 
it is of faith, that it might be by grace.” From this text, it is evident 
that faith and grace are so connected that justification cannot be by 
grace unless it is of faith. Hence, if we can prove that justification is 
not of works, but of grace, it will follow that it must be by faith. 

This we think will appear from the following scriptures:—Rom. iii 
20, 27, 28: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be. 
justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “ Where 


406. ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.@ 


is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? ef works? Nay; 
but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified 
by faith without the deeds of the law.” Rom. iv. 4, 5: “ Now to him 
that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Brt to 
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his 
faith is counted for righteousness.” Rom. iii. 24: “ Being justified freely 
by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” Gal. iii. 
2, 11: “This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the 
works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” “ But that no man is jus 
tified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall 
live by faith.” Gal. ii. 16: “ Knowing that a man is not justified by the 
works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed 
in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not 
by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be 
justified.” Gal. v. 4: “Christ is become of no effect unto you “rhioso- 
ever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” 

From the foregoing scriptures, it is evident that justificatics 1s not 
of works, but of grace; therefore it must be by faith. We th:ak the 
evidence we have produced proves conclusively that justifiertion by 
faith is the plain doctrine of the Bible. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXII. 


Questiox 1. How is justification by|13. What are some of the , «ncipal 


2. 


faith only defined ? 
What is the character of the first | 14 
class of texts adduced? 


texts? 
. What is the efficient caus 
cation? 


A jastifi 


3. Repeat some of them. 15. The meritorious cause? 

4. What is the second class? 16. The moving cause? 

5. In what does this differ from the|17. The instrumental cause o God's 
former argument? part? 

6. What are some of the principal texts | 18. The conditional cause, 0 our port? 
of this class? 19. From what does the jus fying effi- 

7. What is the third class of texts? cacy of faith result? 

8. How is this argument explained? | 20. In what sense are prayer and 

9. What are some of the texts in refer- other duties necessary to justifi- 
ence to salvation by faith? cation? 

10. In reference to regeneration? 21. Can there be two absolute and 

11. In reference to adoption? distinct conditions of justifica 

'% "pon what class of texts is the tion? 
fourth argument based? 22. How can this be proved? 


Om. xxiii.) JUSTIFICATION BY FAITIL ONLY. 407 


CHAPTER XXXIII. 


JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY—OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, 


WE proceed now to consider some of the leading objections to the doo 
trine of justification by faith only. They may all, so far as we consider 
them deserving any notice, be embraced in two: first, it is objected to 
this doctrine that the Scriptures teach justification by evangelical obedi- 
ence; secondly, it is said that the Scriptures teach justification by bap- 
ism. These two leading objections we will now briefly consider. 

I. First, it is objected that the doctrine of justification by faith only, 
ts inconsistent with what the Scriptures teach in reference to justification by 
evangelical obedience. 

That we may perceive the true force of this objection, we here 
observe, that the word justify is sometimes used in Scripture in relation 
to that sentence of acquittal or condemnation which shall be awarded 
to every man at the day of judgment. In this sense it is used by our 
Saviour in Matt. xii. 87: “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and 
by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” This justification is, in a certain 
sense, by works; for “words” in the text denote the entire actions; but 
this is not by the merit of works, but only implies that we are justified 
by the evidence of our works, or that we are to be rewarded, as the Scrip- 
tures repeatedly declare, “according to our works.” So that we remark, 
in reference to this justification, 1. It is not by works on the ground of 
merit, but only by the evidence or measure of works. 2. These works 
themselves are not contemplated in the abstract, but only as connected 
with, and growing out of, evangelical faith. 38. This justification is 
entirely a distinct and separate thing from the justification in question. 
The justification generally spoken of in the Scriptures, of which St. 
Paul treats so largely in the letters to the Romans and to the Gala- 
tians, and which we have presented as being by faith only, means par- 
don for the guilt of past sin bestowed upon the believer the moment he 
believes. Hence it is apparent that any thing affirmed in reference 
to justification at the day of judgment, can have no bearing on the 
subject in hand. 


408 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Psi Be: 


The scripture mainly relied upon in defense of justificz tion by works 
of evangelical obedience, in opposition to justification by faith only, is 
the Epistle of St. James. To this we will fora few moments direct our 
attention. 

Some have rashly concluded that St. James, on the subject of justifica: 
tion, contradicts St. Paul. Under this view, Luther rejected the Epistle 
of James from the canon of Scripture, calling it “an epistle of straw.” 
The great body of the Church have not, however, doubted its authority ; 
and many different plans have been presented to reconcile the seeming 
contradictions of the two apostles. To enter extensively into the con- 
troversy which has been connected with this subject, would be tedious, 
and we think unnecessary. All that seems to be required is, to show 
that St. James does not contradict what we have seen to be so clearly 
taught by St. Paul, and so fully set forth in the Scriptures. This, we 
think, will not be difficult to evince. The contradiction supposed 
between the two apostles respects what they have written in reference to 
the justification of Abraham. That there can be no discrepancy between 
them, we think will be evident from the following considerations: 

1. They do not refer to the same event. St. Paul speaks of the justi- 
fication of Abraham when the promise of the seed was made to him 
before the birth of Isaac: St. James speaks of the justification of Abra- 
ham when “he offered Isaac his son upon the altar.” The two justifi- 
cations were so far from being the same, that they stand in history about 
twenty-five years asunder. Hence, whatever St. James may say, he 
cannot contradict St. Paul, as they speak of entirely different transac- 
tions. 

2. The two apostles do not speak of the same faith—they do not use 
the term in the same sense. St. Paul speaks of that faith which con- 
fides or trusts in the merits of Christ for salvation; which “ works by 
love and purifies the heart;” which implies “ believing with the heart 
unto righteousness” —in a word, he speaks of a living, active, powerful, 
evangelical faith. St. James speaks of a “dead” faith, a faith which 
is “alone,” a mere assent of the understanding; such a faith as the 
“devils” possessed. So far from St. Paul affirming that we are justified 
by such a faith as this, he said not one word in reference to such faith. 
The faith of which he spoke is never “alone,” though it alone justifies. 
Hence it is manifest that, when St. James asks the question, “Can faith 
save him?” he does not mean the same faith spoken of by Paul when 
he affirms that “we are justified by faith;” consequently there can be 
no contradiction between them. 

3. The two apostles do not use the term justification in the same serve. 


Ch. xxxiii.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH CNLY. 409 


That St. Paul uses the term as synonymous with pardon, or the remis- 
sion of sins, has been abundantly proved. That St. James does not use 
the term in this sense, is evident from the case of Abraham appealed to 
for illustration. 

In the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, where Moses records the trans- 
action referred to by St. Paul, he declares that “he (Abraham) believed 
in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.” 

Now, if we understand St. James to affirm that Abraham was not 
pardoned till years afterward, when he offered Isaac upon the altar, we 
make him contradict both Paul and Moses, and we may set ourselves 
to reconciling him with the latter as well as the former. But surely 
this view cannot be maintained. Hence we conclude that the two apos- 
tles could not use the term justification in the same sense. 

St. James, by the term, can only mean that the faith of Abraham 
was manifested or proved to be genuine; his works were a manifesta- 
tion or evidence of his former justification by faith; or they may be 
taken as a proof that he had not forfeited his justification by apostasy. 
So that, in this accommodated sense of the term, the only sense con- 
sistent with the history of the case, and a sense not at all used by St. 
Paul, Abraham was said by James to be justified “by works.” Hence 
we conclude that, when St. James says, “ Ye see, then, how that by 
works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” he does not refer to 
the same kind of justification of which St. Paul treats; consequently 
there can be no contradiction between them. As this is the main 
reliance of the advocates for justification by evangelical obedience in 
opposition to the doctrine of justification by faith only, and as we find 
here nothing irreconcilable with the view of the doctrine which we 
have advocated, we deem it unnecessary to pursue this subject farther. 

IT. In the next place, we notice the objection that the doctrine of 
justification by faith only is inconsistent with what the Scriptures teach 
concerning justification or remission of sins by baptism. 

If, by such as urge the above objection, the meaning be merely that 
baptism is a means of grace, which, like hearing the word, prayer, and 
various other means, should be used sincerely, in reference to, or as 
a help to, the exercise of evangelical faith, there can be no controversy ; 
for all this is freely admitted. But if the meaning be that baptism ia 
the condition of justification, in such sense as we have shown faith to 
be—that is, that it is a condition in such sense that none can be justified 
or have their sins remitted without it, and that all who are baptized are 
that moment justified—if this be the meaning, then do we most explie. 
itly repudiate the notion as being unscriptural and pernicions, 


t10 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Prine 


Again: if it be contended that faith and baptism united are the com 
dition of justification, in the sense above defined, this modification of 
the subject we consider equally unscriptural and pernicious with the 
one above named. The first view presented, which admits baptism, 
sike the hearing of the gospel or prayer, to be a:condition as a means of 
grace, being in no sense incompatible with the view presented of justi- 
fication by faith only, we presume cannot be the sense in which the 
abettors of this objection understand the subject. The two latter 
views—that is, first, that baptism, or second, that faith and baptism 
united, are the condition of justification in the sense in which we have 
defined faith to be—must be considered as embracing the meaning of 
the objectors. We shall therefore endeavor to consider the claims of 
both these notions, in view of Scripture and reason. 

This much we would here premise, that, as we have already shown 
from numerous and explicit declarations of Scripture that faith is the 
absolute and indispensable condition of justification, and as we have 
also shown that to suppose two such conditions involves a contradic 
tion, it will necessarily follow that, if the Scriptures do authorize the 
view of the objectors, as just defined, the book of God must be charged 
with self-contradiction. But we rejoice to believe that a brief exami- 
nation of the Scriptures relied upon by the abettors of the objection 
in question, will discover to us that we need have no such apprehen- 
sion. 

Those who make baptism the only appointed means of remission, 
rely almost exclusively upon the following passages :—Acts ii. 38: 
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts xxii. 16: “And now, why 
tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord.” 1) Peter iii. 21: “The like figure where- 
unto, even baptism, doth now save us, (not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ.” 

We think it will be admitted by all intelligent and candid persons, 
that when a passage of Scripture is susceptible of two different con- 
structions, the one perfectly consistent with all other scriptures, and the 
other irreconcilable with a number of plain declarations of scripture, 
the former interpretation should be adopted. Taking this rule of inter. 
pretation, which we think none can oppose, as the basis of our reason. 
“ng, we proceed to consider the above texts. 

1. We will show that they may, without violence, be construed so as 


Ch. xxxiii.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. 411 


not to conflict with the doctrine of justification by faith only, as we 
have defined and endeavored to establish it. 

2. We shall show the violence to many plain declarations of the 
Bible, which the construction required by the objectors in question 
would involve. 

Then we inquire, How can these passages be explained in accordance 
with our views of justification by faith only? 

(1) First, in reference to the words of Peter, in the second chapter 
ef The Acts, we remark, that the “remission of sins,” it is true, is here 
promised in connection with baptism. But, we ask, is it not in connec- 
tion with something more than baptism, both expressed and implied? 
The words are, “Repent, and be baptized.” Here repentance is ex- 
pressed, and faith is evidently implied, as being connected with repent- 
ance. If we deny this, we admit that sins may be remitted without 
faith, and contradict the whole tenor of Scripture; if we admit this, 
then we admit that these persons may have been justified by faith 
only. 

Baptism is a sign or emblem of the cleansing of the soul, and all 
who faithfully use the sign have here the promise of the thing signified ; 
but can any say that this is absolutely connected with the sign, whether 
it be faithfully used or not? We think this can scarcely be contended 
for; and if so, then it follows that baptism is not the essential condition 
in the case, but the faith with which it was required to be used. They 
are commanded to “repent, and be baptized, eé¢ (in order to) the remis- 
sion of sins”—that is, to use these means with reference to the end in 
view, which will certainly accompany the means when used in faith; 
but, at the same time, the faith implied as connected with, or as beiag 
obtained in, the use of the means, is the availing condition, as it aloe 
can apprehend the merits of that “blood, without the shedding of whi +h 
there can be no remission.” 

But that faith was here connected with the use of the means, ard 
that it, and not baptism, nor yet baptism and faith taken together, was 
the real condition through which the spiritual blessings promised was 
communicated, we are not left to conclude by mere inference. The 
same apostle who here gave the command to “ repent and be baptized,” 
promising “ remission of sins,” and “ the gift of the Holy Ghost,” refers 
to this matter in the fifteenth chapter of The Acts, and testifies, (speak- 
ing of the Gentiles,) that God gave “them the Holy Ghost even as he 
did unto us, (the Jews,) and put no difference between us (Jews at Pen- 
tecost) and them, (the Gentiles,) purifying their hearts by faith.” Now. 
as justification, ot “remission of sins,” is inseparably connected with 


412 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Poi Bi 


the purification of the heart spoken of, we have the direct testimony of 
Peter himself, that these Jews at Pentecost were justified, not by bajy 
tism, but “ by faith.” 

(2) The same mode of explanation which we have above presented 
will equally apply to the next passage—the words of Ananias to Saul— 
Acts xxii. 16: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, ealling 
on the name of the Lord.” Here baptism is not alone, but is connected 
with “calling on the name of the Lord,” which is used here, as in the 
Scriptures frequently, as another expression for evangelical faith. This 
same person who was here commanded to “wash away his sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord,” affirms, in the tenth chapter to the Romans, 
that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” It 
is beyond controversy that this implies faith, and therefore the passage 
in question, so far from disproving the doctrine of justification by faith, 
is no inconsiderable evidence in its favor. 

(3) The last text we proposed to examine, in this connection, is 1 
Peter iii. 21: “The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now 
save us,” etc. Here it may be sufficient to observe that the apostle, as 
if by special design to guard us against the notion which we are now 
upposing, takes special pains, by the use of parenthesis, to define the 
selse in which he uses the word baptism. “Not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh”—that is, it is not the external rite of washing 
the body with water that “saves us,” but it is “the answer of a good 
conscience toward God”—that is, it is the internal baptism, or purifica- 
tion of the heart by the Holy Spirit through faith, (which alone ean 
impart a “ good conscience,”) that “doth now save us.” 

We think, from what we have now presented, it will be manifest to 
the unprejudiced mind, that the texts adduced may be construed, with- 
out violence, in consistency with the doctrine of justification by faith 
oly. 

III. We conclude the present chapter by presenting a few of the 
difficulties which are necessarily involved in the notion that baptism, or 
even baptism in connection with faith, is the condition of justification. 

1 If baptism be the prescribed and only means of justification, or 
pardon, then it will follow, either that the ordinance must be repeated 
in order to forgiveness, every time the baptized person subsequently 
commits sin, or that there are two different methods of justification. 
The former is contrary to the practice of the apostolic, as well as all 
modern, Churches; the latter is contrary to the whole tenor of Scrip 
ture, which recognizes but one “sacrifice for sin,” aud but one mode of 
access to that sacrifice. 


Ch. xxxiii.] JUSTIFICATION BY FALLH ONLY. 413 


2. This scheme of justification leaves us without any evidence that 
the apostles themselves were ever justified; for, although they were 
commissioned to preach the gospel, and to baptize the nations, there is 
no proof that they themselves ever were baptized under the gospes 
economy. If it be said that they baptized each other, we reply, this is 
assertion without proof; but were we to admit the fact, some one of 
them must have been the first, and consequently he must have adminis 
tered the ordinance while he himself was under condemnation. 

3. This scheme, which inseparably connects the remission of sins 
with baptism, either implies that God saves the heathen without the 
“remission of sins” at all, or that none of them can be saved. Tithe 
position is repugnant to Scripture. 

4, This scheme of justification is contrary to the Scripture history. 
Christ, when here upon earth, said to various individuals, “Thy sins 
are forgiven, go in peace and sin no more;” and to the thief on the 
cross, he said, “'To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” In these 
cases two things are certain: 1. There was real “remission of sins,” 
for so it is either undeniably implied, or expressly declared.. 2. Then 
was no baptism, nor any other work of obedience; but the simple exer- 
cise of faith. The language of the great Teacher was, “ Be it according 
to thy faith;” “Thy faith hath saved thee ;” or, “To-day shalt thou be 
with me in paradise.” There is not one word in reference to baptism. 
"udeed, it is undeniable that there was no such thing. 

Again: while Peter was preaching in the house of Cornelius, (Acts 
x.,) and declaring “that whosoever believeth in him shall receive remis- 
sion of sins,” the Holy Ghost fell on the people, and they “ magnified 
God.” Now, that this implies the renewing influence of the Spirit, as 
well as miraculous gifts, is evident from the fact that they were imme- 
diately admitted to Church-fellowship, not as having the promise of 
remission in baptism which was proposed, but they were recommended 
to baptism on the ground of what they had already received, 

If we say that they did not receive the “remission of sins” previous 
to baptism, then we admit that the Holy Ghost came upon them, and 
they were recommended by the apostle for Church-communion in conse- 
quence thereof, while they were in a state of guilt and condemnation; 
and, moreover, that Peter commanded them to be baptized, (although 
as Gentiles they, of all persons, the most needed full instruction,) with 
out one word, so far as the narrative shows, on the subject of the 
“remission of sins,” as connected with that baptism. If we say that 
they received “remission of sins” previous to baptism, then the point 
iw controversy is fairly surrendered, 


414 ELEMENTS UF DIVINITY. [P.1.B 4 


Nor can this be evaded by saying that this was the first introduction 
of the gospel among the Gentiles. What if it was? Unless it can be 
proved that God designed to make the plan of salvation different among 
the Gentiles in its commencement from what it was to be in its progress, 
the fact of its being the commencement of the gospel with them cannot 
affect the question before us in the least. ‘To say that this case was an 
exception to the general rule, and that the case on the day of Pentecost 
was the true model of God’s regular method of justification, is perfectly 
gratuitous. It is a human invention; a fiction of our own, without a 
word or syllable of Scripture for its support. Why not say that the 
case of Pentecost was the exception, and this, in the house of Cornelius, 
the regular plan? If we may make laws, and exceptions to laws, in the 
kingdom of Christ, at pleasure, the latter would seem rather the more 
plausible of the two, especially as the Christian Church has hitherto 
been mainly composed of Gentile converts. 

The truth is, baptism, like other means of grace, may either precede 
or follow the act of faith which justifies. Faith being the great and 
only indispensable condition of pardon, and as it may be exercised 
either before, or after, or even in the act of, baptism, there is, on this 
hypothesis, no difficulty in harmonizing the two cases under considera- 
tion. But by the scheme of baptismal justification, as presented above, 
they are perfectly irreconcilable. 

5. But the crowning objection to the whole scheme is its direct oppo- 
sition to the general tenor of the Scriptures. If we admit it, we must 
directly contradict a vast number of plain declarations of the inspired 
record, and render a good portion of the Bible absurd and ridiculous. 
This may soon be made manifest. 

(1) The Scriptures everywhere represent justification, or the forgive- 
ness of sins, as the proper work of God; and nowhere is it presented as 
a work of man, either as the prime or constituted agent. When the 
great Jehovah proclaimed, under circumstances of the deepest solemnity, 
his character to Moses, one of its essential properties was declared to be 
the prerogative of “ forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin.” When 
the Jews made against the Son of God the foul charge of blasphemy, 
their principal specification was that he had said to the paralytic, “Thy 
sins are forgiven thee:” this is blasphemy, exclaimed the Jews; for 
“Who can forgive sins but God?” and St. Paul declares, “It is God 
that justifieth.” Now, if baptism be the act that justifies, and which 
invariably remits sin, does it not follow that the administrator of the 
ordinance is the agent in justification? And thus this doctrive is 
closely allied to the papal absurdity of remission by the priest. 


Ch. xxxiii.] JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ONLY. 415 


(2) The Scriptures everywhere represent that justification by works 
is impossible; but if we are justified by baptism, since it is undeniable 
that it is, in the proper sense, a work, it follows that the word of God 
expressly contradicts itself; for the apostle declares “that a man is jus- 
tified by faith without the deeds of the law.” 

(3) If baptism be the essential and invariable condition of pardon, 
how can those scriptures be true which represent that salvation is pos- 
sible to all men who have not squandered their day of gracious visita- 
tion; and that, not at some future period, but immediately, without any 
. delay, except what arises from the state of the sinner’s heart? That 
such is the genera] teaor of Scripture, we think will not be denied. 
Upon the supposition that faith is the grand essential condition, we per- 
ceive at once its perfect adaptation to all circumstances and conditions, 
to all climates and to all places. Neither cold, nor drought, nor time, 
nor place, nor disease, nor prison, which may frequently preclude the 
possibility of baptism, and consequently the possibility of salvation, 
according to the theory of remission which we now oppose, can insuper- 
ably obstruct the salvation of any man, on the principle of justification 
by faith. 

6. Lastly: if the system of justification against which we have been 
speaking be admitted, then it will follow that, in all places where justi- 
fication or salvation is spoken of, and any thing mentioned as the con- 
dition thereof, the specified condition may be omitted, and baptism 
substituted for it, in consistency with the gospel scheme. 

Apply this rule to the following scriptures, and let any intelligent 
and sober person determine whether, as Baxter has expressed it, “ the 
word of God” ought to be thus “audaciously corrected”: “He that 
believeth not shall be damned.” “ He that believeth on him is not con- 
demned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he 
hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” Now, 
if baptism be the absolute and essential condition of salvation, it nec- 
essarily follows that without violence it may be here substituted for 
faith—then the passages would read thus: “He that is not baptized shall 
be damned.” “ He that is baptized in his name is not condemned; but 
he that is not baptized in his name is condemned already, because he 
hath not been baptized in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” 
The above is sufficient to show how ridiculous such a reading would 
render the word of God. Many such passages might be quoted, in 
which to substitute baptism for faith, would be nothing better than tri- 
fling with the sacred word. 

We consider it needless to pursue the subject farther. We think we 


416 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. BA 


have shown clearly that there can, in the very nature of the subject, be 
but one absolute and invariable condition of justification. And we think 
it must be obvious, from what has been presented, what that condition 
is. Baptism, it cannot be; for there is not one text in the Bible which 
attributes it to that ordinance alone. It is attributed to baptism, to 
repentance, to conversion, to prayer, and various other things, in con- 
nection with faith; but never to any one of them, nor to all of them 
taken together, in the absence of faith. On the other hand, there are 
near a hundred plain passages of Scripture that attribute salvation or 
justification (which mutually imply each other) to faith, as the only 
essential condition. 

We therefore close, by repeating, as the conclusion of this investiga- 
tion, the following declaration :—Justification is by faith only, in such 
sense that none can be justified without faith, and all who have it are jus- 
tified. Or, in the words of the Methodist Discipline, (Art. [X.,) “That 
we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very 
full of comfort.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXIII. 


QorsTion 1. Whatare the two principal | 6. What scriptures are relied upon? 
grounds of objection to the doctrine | 7. How may they be explained? 


of justification by faith alone? 8. What is the first difficulty said to be 
2. By what scriptures is justification by connected with justification by 
evangelical obedience attempted to baptism ? 
be sustained ? 9. The second? 
3. What kind of justification is by | 10. The third? 
works, and in what sense? 11. The fourth? 


4. How are James and Paul reconciled? | 12. The fifth? 
5. In what sense is it contended that| 13. How is the last difficulty illas 
justification is by baptism? trated ? 


oh. xxxiv,) REGENERATION, 417 


CHAPTER XXXIV. 


REGENERATION. 


THE divinity of the Bible is a beautiful and harmonious system, 
consisting of a variety of important principles, closely connected and 
mutually dependent upon each other. As the malformation of a single 
wheel would derange all the parts of a complicated piece of machinery, 
so a radical error in relation to one important doctrine generally extends 
its influence throughout the entire gospel system. This truth is no- 
where more manifest than in connection with the subject now to be con- 
sidered. Regeneration is a grand focal point, occupying a central posi- 
tion in theology. Here all the important doctrines of the gospel meet ; 
and any radical error in the theories of men may generally be detected. 
For it may well be said, that whoever is sound in his entire view of the 
doctrine of regeneration, cannot be seriously erroneous in any essential 
doctrine of salvation; but, on the other hand, a radical error in this 
doctrine will not only extend its influence to almost every leading doc- 
trine of Christianity, but it will endanger the salvation of the soul. 

All this will be obvious when it is reflected that regeneration implies 
what is commonly understood by experimental religion. It conteim- 
plates that vital change in the moral character which constitutes the 
distinctive characteristic of the Christian, and which alone can give 
a meetness for heaven. He who holds not the essential truth here, 
errs where error may be tremendously fatal; but he whose theory, expe- 
rience, and life, accord with the orthodox views of regeneration, may 
embrace in his system of theology much “wood, hay, and stubble,” 
which shall be burned, “ yet he himself shall be saved.” In reference 
to this point especially, every serious inquirer after salvation should 
prayerfully “search the Scriptures,” in constant remembrance of the 
divine monition, “ He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” But he 
that not only fatally errs on this subject, but “teaches men” to follow 
him, “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his 
neck, and he were drowned in the midst of the sea.” May the Spirit 
of truth enlighten our understandings, that on this important. subject 
we may have correct thoughts and speak right words! 

27 


416 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi BA 


I. We inquire what is implied in regeneration. This word occurs 
but twice in the New Testament—Matt. xix. 28, and Titus iii. 5. In 
the first-mentioned place, the Greek word is tadtyyeveoia, which signi- 
fies reproduction, restoration, or renovation. In Titus the word is the 
same, only varying in case, and has the same import. Although the 
same word, having the same general import, is used in both places, yet 
the Jearned have generally agreed that it does not imply, in both cases, 
a renovation of the same kind. 

In Matthew, our Saviour says to the apostles: “ Ye which have fol- 
lowed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the 
throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the — 
twelve tribes of Israel.” 

The sense in this passage is materially affected by the punctuation. 
Whitby, Benson, Wesley, Clarke, Watson, and the learned commenta- 
tors, with few exceptions, so far as we have examined, connect the 
clause, “in the regeneration,” with what follows. But even then, they 
differ in the application. Some understand “the regeneration ” to refer 
to the millennial state; others, to the general resurrection and day of 
judgment; but others, we think, with more propriety, refer it to the 
perfected gospel dispensation. This, then, being adopted as the most 
consistent interpretation of the passage, it follows that “ regeneration,” 
in this place, has no reference to the change of personal character con- 
stituting an individual a son of God, but a change in the state of 
things—a renovation of the Church, implying the dissolution of the old, 
and the establishment of the new, dispensation. 

The passage in Titus reads as follows: “Not by works of righteous- 
ness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by 
the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” 

Here, as most commentators think, “ washing of regeneration” refers 
to the rite of baptism; but not to the external rite alone, or even 
mainly. The word “washing” more properly refers to the rite, and 
“regeneration” to the moral change signified thereby. So constantly 
was the thing signified present in the minds of the primitive Christians 
when they contemplated the sign, that they might, without danger of 
misapprehension, only mention the one, when both were evidently im- 
plied. But that “regeneration,” in this place, implies the renewing of 
the heart, appears obvious from the succeeding clause, “and renewing 
of the Holy Ghost,” which is intimately connected with, and exegetical 
of, what precedes. Hence we conclude that, in this passage, the term 
“regeneration” is applied to that moral renovation of character which 
constitutes an individual a child of God and an heir of eternal life. 


’ 


Ch. xrxxiv.] REGENERATION, 419 


So general has been the use of the term regeneration, as expressive 
of the moral change above mentioned, by theologians in all ages of the 
Church, that, even if the word itself were not found in Scripture, there 
could be no impropriety in its use, as its agreed sense is clearly and 
repeatedly expressed by various other terms. Thus it is called a “pass- 
ing from death unto life’—a being “born again’”—*born of the 
Spirit” —* born of God”—being “in Christ”—‘a new creature”— 
“created anew,” etc. When, therefore, we speak of “regeneration,” 
we mean that change in man expressed in Scripture by such terms as 
we have just quoted. Our present inquiry is to ascertain what that 
chai.ge implies. 

1. It does not mean a mere conversion from infidelity to a historical belief 
of the facts, and a theoretical belief of the truths, of the gospel. 

Regeneration presupposes, but does not consist in, mere orthodox 
views in religion. A person may understand and believe, theoretically, 
the doctrines of the gospel, and yet be an utter stranger to experimental 
and practical godliness, and consequently in a state of alienation from 
God, and exposure to his wrath and righteous indignation. 

2. It does not consist in mere morality or external reformation. 

This, likewise, regeneration requires; but all this may exist while the 
heart is unrenewed, and the soul under condemnation. 

3. It does not mean a mere external profession of religion. 

(od has instituted his Church in the world, and commanded that 
there should be “added unto the Church daily” such as embrace the 
gospel by faith; but in every age there have been a portion of spurious 
disciples—persons either deceived themselves, or wickedly deceiving 
others. “All are not Israel that are of Israel ;” the “tares and the 
wheat” still “grow together ;” and in the pale of the visible Church are 
embraced many who know nothing of the spirituality of religion. 

4, Nor does it imply a mere observance of all the forms, ordinances, and 
external duties of religion. 

Had this been all that was required, then the Pharisees would have 
been acceptable worshipers, and Saul of Tarsus might have pleaded the 
righteousness of the law. But it is “not every one that saith Lord, 
Lord, that shall enter into the kingdom;” nor he that merely performs 
the external duties of religion; but such as are Christians in heart, 
“delighting in the law of God after the inward man,” and having “the 
power” as well as “the form of godliness.” 

5. Regeneration does not imply new faculties of either body or soul. 

These have become deranged and contaminated by the Fall, but not 
annihilated. The ungodly have eyes and ears to read and hear the 


420 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.4 


word of God, as well as believers. And they likewise have all the 
faculties of the soul necessary for the exercise of every spiritual grace. 
Religion imparts no new faculty, but only regulates and purifies those 
that already exist. 

But we now inquire, positively, what does regeneration imply ? 

1. Regeneration may be defined to be a radical change in the morat 
character from the love, practice, and dominion of sin, to the love of God, 
and #) the internal exercise, and external practice, of holiness. Or, aa 
Mr. Watson expresses it, it is “deliverance from the bondage of sin, 
and the power and the will to do all things which are pleasing to God, 
both as to inward habits and outward acts.” 

The above definition, it will readily appear, is sustained by the fol- 
lowing passages :—1 John iii. 9: “ Whosoever is born of God doth not 
commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot sin, because 
he is born of God.” Rom. vi. 14: “For sin shall not have dominion 
over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Verse 18: 
“ Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteous 
ness.” Verse 22: “ But now being made free from sin, and become 
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness; and the end everlast- 
ing life.” . 

The native state of the heart is hatred to God. “The carnal mind” 
—that is, the unrenewed sinful nature—“ is enmity against God; for it 
is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So, then, they 
that are in the flesh cannot please God.” It is only divine grace, regen. 
erating the soul, that can slay this enmity, “turn back our nature’s 
rapid tide,” and cause the affections of the soul to flow out after God 
and heavenly objects. The Apostle John says: “Every one that loveth 
is born of God, and knoweth God ;” and, “ He that loveth not knoweth 
not God.” And again: “We know that we have passed from death 
unto life, because we love the brethren;” and farther: “This is the love 
of God that we keep his commandments;” and, “Every one which 
doeth righteousness is born of him.” 

From the scriptures adduced we may learn, 1. An unregenerate soul 
can neither love nor obey God while in that state. 2. Every regener- 
ated soul loves God supremely, loves the people of God sincerely and 
affectionately, and engages willingly and heartily in the service f God, 
by obeying his commandments. — 

2. Regeneration stands closely connected with, but is distinct from, justi- 
fication and adoption. 

Mr. Wesley says, in his sermon on “ The New Birth,” that justifica- 
tion “relates to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our 


Un. cxxiv.] REGENERATION. 42) 


sins ;” and that regeneration “relates to the great work which God does 
in us, in renewing our fallen nature.” “In order of time, neither of 
these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace 
of God, through the redemption that. is in Jesus, we are also ‘born of 
the Spirit ;’ but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification pre- 
cedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, 
and then his Spirit to work in our hearts.” 
In reference to regeneration, justification, and adoption, Mr. Watson 
observes: “They occur at the same time, and they all enter into the 
experience of the same person; so that no man is justified without being 
regenerated and adopted, and no man is regenerated and made a son of 
God who is not justified. Whenever they are mentioned in Scripture, 
they therefore involve and imply each other—a remark which may 
preserve us from some errors. Thus, with respect to our heirship, and 
consequent title to eternal life, in Titus iii. 7, it is grounded upon our 
justification: ‘That being justified by his grace, we should be made 
heirs according to the hope of eternal life.’ In 1 Peter i. 3, it is con- 
- nected with our regeneration: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begot- 
ten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
the dead, to an inheritance,’ ete. Again, in Rom. viii. 17, it is grounded 
upon our adoption: ‘If children, then heirs.’ These passages are a 
sufficient proof that justification, regeneration, and adoption, are not dis- 
tinct and different titles, but constitute one and the same title, through 
the gift of God in Christ, to the heavenly inheritance.” (Theological 
Institutes. ) ! 

IT. We now inquire, How is the blessing of regeneration attained? By 
what is the great change which it implies produced? Upon this impor- 
tant subject there are three leading theories. : 

1. The first theory is, that this change is effected by the direct influ-_ 
ence of the Holy Spirit, and that the mind_of man _is_perfectly passive 

tthercinijaat ee Ook 

2. The second is what may be styled the theory of self-conyersion. 
It allows no direct divine influence, but maintains that the truth. acts 
upon the mind by way of—moral-suasion, and through it alone the — 
simner submits to the plan of salvation, and obeys the divine com- 
mand in the ordinance of baptism; and this is said to constitute regen- 
eration. 

3. The third theory occupies middle ground between the two above 
given, and, as we hope to be able to show, is in accordance with the 
Scriptures. It embraces both divine and human agency as heing cor 


422 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Poa Boa. 


cerned in the work. This theory is expressed by Dr. Fisk (see “ Cal- 
vinistic Controversy”) in the following two propositions: “1. The work 
of regeneration is performed by the direct and efficient operations of _ 
the Holy Spirit upon the heart. 2. The Holy Spirit exerts this regen- 
erating power onl y-en-eonditions, to_he first-complied with by the sub 
ject_of the change.”- 

We will now consider each of these theories in order. 

1. The theory which teaches that man is perfectly passive in regene 
ration is properiy the Calvinistic scheme, as the following quotations 
will evince. 

In the Westminster Confesssion of Faith, Chapter X., we read these 
words: “This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not 
from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, 
until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby 
enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and con- 
veyed in it.” 

In Buck’s Theological Dictionary, under the head of “ Regenera- 
tion,” and in reference to it, we have these words: “The properties of 
it (regeneration) are these: 1. It is a passive work, and herein it dif 
fers from conversion. In regeneration we are passive, and receive from 
God: in conversion we are active, and turn to him. 2. It is an irre- 
sistible, or rather an invincible, work of God’s grace.” 

That the Calvinistic notion is not only that regeneration is a passive 
work, but that it is the first effect of saving grace on the heart, and 
precedes both repentance and faith, will be farther evident from the 
following quotations :— 

The great Charnock, as quoted by Buck, uses these words: “In 
regeneration, man is wholly passive; in conversion, he is active: The 
first reviving us is wholly the act of God, without any concurrence of 
the creature; but after we are revived, we do actively and voluntarily 
live in his sight. Regeneration is the motion of God in the creature; 
conversion is the motion of the creature to God, by virtue of that first 
principle: from this principle all the acts of believing, repenting, mor- 
tifying, quickening, do spring. In all these a man is active; in the 
other he is merely passive.” (See Buck’s Theological Dictionary, under 
Conversion.) 

In the works of Thomas Scott, Vol. IV., “Saving Faith,” Part 2, 
Sec. 2, we have these words: “The first effect of the Lord’s special 
love to those who are dead in sin and slaves to divers lusts, consists in 
quickening and regenerating them; and they are regenerated that they 
may be justified, by being made capable of believing in the Lord Jesus 


Uh. xxxiv.] REGENERATION. — > 425 
Christ.” “We are passive in receiving divine life, though it may be 
communicated while we are using the appointed means, or bestowing 
much diligence from natural principles; but we are active in turning 
to the Lord by true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. The former 
is regeneration ; the latter, conversion.” ‘“ Regeneration precedes both 
faith and conversion.” 

Many more quotations from the most reputable Calvinistic authorities 
might be added, but we think that the above are sufficient to show that 
we are not misrepresenting the Calvinistic view, in the presentation 
above given. In the refutation of this theory of regeneration, we quote 
from Dr. Fisk, as follows: 

“The notion that the mind is entirely passive in this change—that is, 
that nothing is done by, the subject of it which is preparative or condi- 
tional, or in any way cooperative in its accomplishment, has been a 
prevailing sentiment in the various modifications of the old Calvinistic 
school. It is not, indeed, pretended that the mind is inactive either 
before or at the time this renovation is effected by the Holy Spirit. On 
the contrary, it is said that the sinner is resisting with all the power of 
the mind, and with all the obstinacy of the most inveterate enmity, up 
to the very moment, and in the very act, of regeneration.* So that the 
sinner is regenerated not only without his codperation, but also in spite 
of his utmost resistance. Hence it is maintained that, but for the irre- 
sistible influence of the Holy Ghost upon the heart, no sinner would be 
regenerated. 

“1, One of the leading objections to this view is that it is insepara- 
bly connected with the doctrine of particular and unconditional elece- 
tion. The two reciprocally imply each other, and must therefore stand 
or fall together. But this doctrine of particular and unconditional 
election has been sufficiently refuted, it is hoped; if so, then the doc- 
trine of passivity and irresistible grace is not true. 

“2. Another very serious difficulty which this theory (of regenera- 
tion) has to contend with is, that the Scriptures, in numerous passages, 
declare that the Spirit of God may be resisted, grieved, quenched, and 
utterly disregarded; and that the grace of God may be abused, or 
received in vain. The passages to establish these propositions are so 
frequent that I need not stop to point them out. But if this be so, 
then the grace of God and the Spirit of grace are not irresistible. 


* As Dr. Fisk uses “conversion” as synonymous with regeneration, we have 
generally substituted regeneration, as a term more definite, and less liable to be 
misunderstood. The Doc‘rr’s remarks only apply to conversion in the sense of 
yegeneration 


424 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 4 


“3. It may be yet farther objected to this doctrine of the mind’s pas 


sivity in regeneration that it is a virtual denial of all gracious influ 
ence upon the heart before regeneration. It has been shown that man 
is not able to comply with the conditions of salvation -vithout grace, 
and that the gracious influences of the Divine Spirit are given to every 
sinner previous to regeneration. But there would be no necessity for 
this, and no consistency in it, if there are no conditions and no codpera- 
tion on the part of the sinner in the process of the new birth. Hence 
the advocates of this doctrine very consistently maintain that the first 
act of grace upon the heart of the sinner is that which regenerates him. 
Since, then, this theory conflicts with the Bible doctrine of a gracious 
influence anterior to regeneration, it cannot be admitted. 

“4, This theory of regeneration removes all, conditions on the part 
of the sinner to the removal of the power and guilt of sin. It teaches 
that if the sinner should do any thing acceptable to God, as a condition 
to his regeneration, it would imply he did not need regenerating; that 
such an idea, in fact, would be inconsistent with the doctrine of deprav- 
ity, and irreconcilable with the idea of salvation by grace. And this 
is the ground on which the old Calvinists have so repeatedly charged 
us with the denial of the doctrines of grace, and with holding that we 
may be justified by our works. There is something very singular in 
these notions respecting the necessity of unconditional regeneration in 
order that it may be by grace. These same Calvinists tell us that the 
sinner can repent, and ought to repent, and that the Scriptures require 
it at his hand. What! is the sinner able and obliged to do that which 
would destroy the whole economy of grace—which would blot out the 
gospel, and nullify the atonement itself? Ought he to do that which 
would prove him a practical Pelagian and an operative workmonger? 
Is he, indeed, according to Calvinists themselves, required in Scripture 
to do that which would prove Calvinism false, and a conditional regen. 
eration true? So it would seem. Put together these two dogmas of 
Calvinism: 1. The sinner is able and ought to repent. 2. The idea 
that the sinner does any thing toward his regeneration destroys tle 
doctrine of depravity and of salvation by grace. I say, put these 
two together, and you have almost all the contradictions of Calvinism 
converged to a focus; and, what is most fatal to the system, you 
have the authority of Calvinism itself to prove that every intelligent 
probationer on the earth not only has the ability, but is authoritatively 
required, to give practical demonstration that the system is false! 
What is this but tu say, ‘You can, and you cannot’—if you do not, 
yeu will be justly condemned—if you do, you will ruin the gospel 


Uh. xxa1v.) REGENERATION. 425 


system, and yourself with it? When such glaring paradoxes appear, 
there must be something materially wrong in at least some parts of the 
system. 

“5. But the inconsistency is not its only, and certainly not its most 
injurious, characteristic. In the same proportion as men are made to 
believe that there are no conditions on their part to their regeneration, 
they will be likely to fall into one of the two extremes of carelessness, 
or despair; either of which persisted in would be ruinous. I cannot 
doubt but that, in this way, tens of thousands have been ruined. We 
should infer that such would be the result of the doctrine from only 
understanding its character; and I am fully satisfied that, in my own 
personal acquaintance, I have met with hundreds who have been lulled 
in the cradle of Antinomianism on the one hand, or paralyzed with 
despair on the other, by this same doctrine of passive, unconditional 
regeneration. Calvinists, it is true, tell us this is the abuse of the doc- 
trine; but it appears to me to be the legitimate fruit. What else could 
we expect? A man might as well attempt to dethrone the Mediator as 
to do any thing toward his own regeneration, Teach this, and careless- 
ness ensues ; Antinomian feelings will follow; or, if you arouse the mind 
by the curse of the law, and by the fearful doom that awaits the unre- 
generate, what can he do? Nothing! Hell rises from beneath to meet 
him, but he can do nothing. He looks until he is excited to frenzy, 
from which he very probably passes over to raving madness, or settles 
down into a state of gloomy despair. 

“6, Another very decisive objection to this doctrine is the frequent, 
and I may say uniform, language of Scripture. The Scriptures require 
us to seek, ask, knock, come to Christ, look unto God, repent, believe, 
open the door of the heart, receive Christ, etc. No one can fail to 
notice how these instructions are sprinkled over the whole volume of 
revelation. And, what is specially in point here, all these are spoken 
of, and urged upon us, as conditions of blessings that shall follow—even 
the blessings of salvation, of regeneration—and as conditions too, with- 
out which we cannot expect these blessings. Take one passage of 
many: ‘As many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.’ If any one 
doubts whether ‘becoming the sons of God,’ as expressed in this text, 
means regeneration, the next verse will settle it: ‘Which were born, 
not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but 
of God.’ John i. 12, 18. The latter verse I may have occasion to 
remark upon hereafter: it is quoted here to show that the new birth is 
undoubtedly the subject here spoken of. And we are here expressiy 


426 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pi. B.A 


taught, in language that will bear no other interpretation, that receiving 
Christ and believing on his name are the conditions of regeneration. 
af there were no other passage in the Bible to direct our minds on this 
subject, this plain, unequivocal text ought to be decisive. But the 
truth is, this is the uniform language of Scripture. And are there any 
passages against these? any that say we cannot come, cannot believe, 
seek, etc.? or any that say this work of personal regeneration is per- 
formed independent of conditions? I know of none which will not 
fairly admit of a different construction. We are often met with this 
passage: ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but 
of God that showeth mercy.’ (See Rom. ix. 16.) But whoever inter- 
preteth this of personal and individual regeneration, can hardly have 
examined the passage carefully and candidly. But we are told, again, 
it is God that renews the heart; and if it is his work, it is not the work 
of the sinner. I grant this: this is the very sentiment I mean to main- 
tain; but then there may be conditions—there are conditions—or else 
we should not hear the Psalmist praying for this, in language that has 
been preserved for the edification of all subsequent generations: ‘Create 
in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” This 
is a practical comment on Christ’s conditional salvation: ‘Ask and ye 
shall receive.’ Since, then, this doctrine of passive unconditional regen- 
eration implies unconditional election—since it is in opposition to those 
scriptures which teach that the Spirit and grace of God may be resisted 
and received in vain—since it is a virtual denial of all gracious influ- 
ences upon the heart before regeneration—since it leads the abettors of 
the theory into gross contradictions by their endeavors to reconcile the 
can and the cannot of their system—since its practical tendency is t 
make sinners careless, or drive them to despair—and, finally, since it 
contradicts that numerous class of scriptures, some of which are very 
unequivocal, that predicate the blessings of regeneration and justifica- 
tion upon certain preparatory and conditional acts of the sinner—there- 
fore we conclude that this theory cannot be true.” (Calvinistie Contro- 
versy.) 

2. The second theory of regeneration is that which rejects from this 
work all direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and attributes the entire 
change to a mere intellectual process, by which the truth of the gospel 
is accredited, and an external obedience rendered, to the rite of bap- 
tism. 

As the advocates of some modification of this theory, we may set down 
Socinians, Arians, Unitarians, some of the New School Presbyterians of 
the United States, and the Rationalists of Germany. These several 


Ch. xrxiv.] KEGENERATION. 427 
parties have differed considerably among themselves on this subject. 
Some have confined the work of regeneration entirely to the mental 
operation, and taught that the new birth means only the change of the 
mind and disposition of the soul produced by the force of truth, accord- 
ing to the principles of moral suasion; others have contended that an 
individual cannot be regenerated till submission to the rite of baptisin is 
added to the mental operation above specified. But they have all agreed 
in rejecting the direct operation of the Spirit from any agency in this 
work. 

(1) The fire+ leading objection to this theory is, that it is unphilo- 
sophical. 

It involves what seems to be irreconcilable with the nature of things 
To avoid misapprehension, and cut off a common method of evasion, 
we here remark that the advocates of this theory have been far from 
admitting that they reject the operation of the Spirit in the accomplish- 
ment of this great work. Indeed, they have represented it as exceed- 
ingly unjust —as gross misrepresentation and intolerant persecution, 
that they should be so charged. But all this brandishing about the 
operations of the Spirit, persecution, etc., is nothing but a ruse by which 
to evade the subject. When they are charged with denying the “oper- 
ations of the Spirit,” a definite and commonly understood meaning is 
attached to that phrase. Hence, to frame a different meaning for it, 
and then to raise the cry of misrepresentation and persecution, because 
they are charged with rejecting a doctrine which they admit, is nothing 
but an evasion of the subject. When they acknowledge the operations 
of the Spirit, they mean by that phrase something entirely differen! 
from what it implies when they are charged with denying it. Therefore 
it is evident that if the thing which they are charged with denying is 
not the same thing which they acknowledge, they have not met, bul 
merely evaded, the charge. 

By the “ operations of the Spirit,” the advocates for this theory merely 
mean that the sacred penmen were inspired by the Spirit to write the 
Scriptures, and endued with the power of working miracles for their 
confirmation; and that this word, thus originally inspired and confirmed, 
now operates on the minds of men so as to produce regeneration, with- 
out any farther influence of the Spirit than what is thus indirectly 
exerted through the written word. Yet they contend that because the 
Spirit originally inspired the word, all the influence of the word resulta 
from that original operation of the Spirit. Whereas the opposers of 
this theory, by the operation of the Spirit in regeneration, mean a direct 
exertion of influence by the Spirit on the heart of the sinner. 


428 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 4. 


To render these two different views more clearly distinct, we may use 
a figure of illustration. Thus, the divine influence which the advocates 
of this theory admit, resembles the influence of the skill and ingenuity 
of an artist, when he forms a complicated piece of machinery, such, for 
instance, as a clock or a watch. The well-arranged parts of the machin- 
ery may continue to perform the office assigned them, and the hour may 
be correctly described by the time-piece, even for years after it has passed 
from the hand of the artisan. Thus, while the clock or the watch con- 
tinues to run, we still, in an indirect sense, attribute its operation to the 
skill of the workman. Though he may be thousands of miles distant, 
or evéx slumbering in his grave, we may still say that his skill and 
ingenuity are operating through the machinery that he formed. Just 
in the same sense the theory of regeneration now in question allows the 
influence of the Spirit of God. They admit that God by his Spirit 
established the gospel, inspired the word, arranged the system, and <et 
the machine to work; but contend that no farther direct energy is 
needed. The Spirit, say they, operates through the word like the skill 
of the man through the watch, and the immediate influence of the Spirit 
is no more essential to the regeneration of the soul, than the immediate 
presence and influence of the artisan is indispensable to the operations 
of the machinery. 

On the other hand, the opposers of this theory would illustrate their 
view of divine influence in regeneration by the figure of “a sword,” 
which is a passive instrument, only moving as it is moved. Thus it is 
contended that, as the sword can only become the instrument of death 
in the hand of the warrior by whom it is wielded, so the word of God 
can only be the instrument of regeneration in the hand, and by the 
direct energy, of the Holy Spirit. According to this view, there is 
a direct and real operation of the Spirit; but, according to the former 
notion, there is no divine power exerted at the time—no real influence 
of the Spirit at all; but merely a secondary, figurative, or indirect 
‘nfluence. 

From what has been said, we think it will readily appear that the 
theory under consideration is unphilosophical, and repugnant to the nature 
2f thiags. It implies an effect without an adequate cause. Man is a 
deing, embracing in his complex character, physical, intellectual, and 
moral powers. ‘These powers, though intimately connected, are really 
distinct in their nature. And a power of a correspondently different 
nature is required to effect a change in them. ‘To effect a physics? 
change, a physical influence is requisite; to effect an intellectual 
change, an intellectual process is requisite; and to effect a mora] 


Ch. xxiv.) REGENERATION. 429 


change, moral power is required. Now, to show that it is impossible, in 
the very nature of things, for regeneration to be effected by mere intel- 
lectual or physical influence, it is only necessary to reflect on the real 
nature of the change which regeneration implies. What kird of a 
change is it? It is not physical; no new faculties are imparted to the 
body. The feeble constitution is not rendered robust, nor the literally 
lame, or halt, or blind, restored to soundness. Were it a change of this 
kind, there would be some philosophy in resorting to physical operations, 
or ap»lying physical influences. Nor is it an intellectual change. No 
new faculties of mind are imparted. The unlettered man is not thereby 
rendered an adept in science, nor the man of naturally feeble intellect 
exalted to an equality in mental power with Locke or Bacon. Were it 
a change of this kind, there would be some philosophy in resorting to 
intellectual operations. But what should we say of the scribe who 
would direct the sinner to engage in the study of Euclid in order to 
effect the regeneration of his soul? And yet if this change only 
implied the improvement of the intellectual faculties, such would be a 
rational course. 

The change in question is neither physical nor intellectual. We 
would not say that it has no connection with the body or the intellect. 
We are required to attend upon the means of grace, to read or hear the 
word, and to endeavor to understand the truths of the gospel. But all 
these constitute no part of, nor do they, to any degree, necessarily result 
in, regeneration. The change is of a nature radically different. It is 
not physical, nor yet intellectual, either in whole or in part; but it is 
solely moral or spiritual. To produce this, there must be an adequate 
cause. Physical and intellectual causes, we have seen, are inadequate. 
What, then, we ask, is the power adequate to the performance of the 
work? We answer, that, as body can operate on body, and mind on 
mind, so spirit can operate on spirit. He who is “the Father of the 
spirits of all flesh,” alone is able to form the soul anew—to change the 
moral character—to “take away the heart of stone, and give a heart 
of flesh.” 

IT know that it is attempted to evade the argument for divine influ- 
ence, as founded on the nature of things, by saying that, “although 
none but God can regenerate the soul, yet he effects this work by the 
agency of instituted means, without any direct divine influence at the 
time.” And the operations of nature are appealed to as illustration 
an proof. 

This maneuver of the advocates of the theory of self-conversion, and 
water-regeneration, divulges the foundation of their entire theory. It 


430 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [ParcBr4 


is founded upon a false and infidel view of the nature of divine provi- 
dence. Indeed, the denial of a particular providence, and the rejection 
of divine influence in regeneration, are necessary parts of the same sys- 
tem. But let us fora moment contemplate the subject. Are we to 
guppose that, because God may operate through the instrumentality of 
second causes, therefore he does not operate at all? Are we to suppose 
that when he formed the material universe he impressed upon matte 
sclf-controlling energy—that he endued the earth, the sea, and all things 
else, with inherent power of self-government; and that the Deity, except 
in cases of miracle, has had no more direct agency in the things of the 
world since creation’s birth, than if there were no God in existence? 
Really it seems that this is implied in the scheme before us. It is noth- 
ing better than a modest method to put God out of the world; it leads 
directly to Atheism. 

As a refutation of the whole scheme, we ask, What are the laws of 
nature but the method by which God contruis the world? And what 
the power of attraction, the process of vegetation, or any of the opera- 
tions of nature around us, but the immediate energy of God? Let but 
the divine energy be withheld, and vain would be the labor of the 
husbandman; the rays of the sun, the fruitfulness of the soil, the 
“showers that water the earth,” could never produce a single spire of 
grass. Just so the means of grace; the reading and hearing of the 
word; the intellectual study of the evidences of Christianity, or the 
doctrines of the gospel; and submission to baptism, and every other 
external rite of the Church—any of these, or all of them combined, 
can no more regenerate a soul, without the direct influence of the power 
of God, than they can create a world. As in nature, so in grace, “Paul 
may plant, and Apollos water, but God giveth the increase.” The great 
change in the human soul, by which it is “created anew in Christ Jesus,” 
is a work which God has delegated to no ordinance or means of grace; 
to no minister nor angel; but reserved to himself alone. Therefore we 
conclude that the theory of regeneration in question is unphilosophical, 
and irreconcilable with the nature of things. 

(2) A second objection to this theory of regeneration is, that it is at 
war with the doctrine of man’s native and total depravity. 

Indeed, few have ever advocated it, but such as have denied total 
depravity. And in this respect, though inconsistent with Scripture, 
they have been consistent with themselves. For if man, by the mere 
exercise of his native mental powers, and submission to baptism, can 
effect the regeneration of his soul, then he cannot be so totally depraved 
end helpless as to be able to do nothing toward his salvation without 


Uh. xxx1v.} REGENERATION. 451 


the aid of divine influence. We think it must be obvious that the 
doctrine of regeneration, without divine influence directly exerted, can- 
not stand with the doctrine of total depravity; and, as the latter has 
been sufficiently proved in former chapters, we add nothing cn that 
point here. 

(3) A third objection to this theory is, that it conflicts with those Serip- 
tures which make it our duty to pray to God for regeneration and its cow 
comttant blessings. 

That such is the Scripture requirement, we think van scarcely be 
denied. The command is, Seek, ask, knock. The Holy Spirit is 
promised to them that “ask ;” and St. Paul declares, “As many as are 
led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Hence, in pray- 
ing for the Spirit of God, or for the pardon of sins, we are praying for 
regeneratior—these blessings involve each other. But, we ask, on the 
supposition that God has nothing to do, directly, with regeneration, how 
can we consistently implore his aid? Will we call on God to do for us 
what he has made it our duty and privilege to do for ourselves? Or 
will we beseech him to do what we believe would be contrary to the 
gospel ? 

According to this theory, for a sinner to be petitioning the throne of 
God for “a new heart,” the “ remission of sins,” or the blessing of “ sal- 
vation,” would render it suitable for the Almighty to rebuke him, by 
saying: “Why call upon me on this subject? Have I not given you 
the power to effect this work without my aid! Go, read the Bible, 
believe the evidence there, and be baptized, and you may thus regene- 
rate your own souls, by merely exercising your native powers. You 
have the Scriptures, and you have your native faculties: these are all 
sufficient ; but if they were not, the age of miracles is past, and I exert 
no direct influence on the hearts of men; and why, therefore, will you 
waste your time in prayer?” 

Such a view of the subject seems more congenial to infidelity than 
religion ; but, we confess, to our mind it appears perfectly consistent 
with the theory before us. Would a man act consistently to pray to 
God for the Scriptures, while he has them already in possession? Surely 
not; and why? Simply because God has already conferred the bless- 
ing. No more could he, according to this theory, ask God for the 
regeneration of his soul; for, so far as the exertion of the divine influ- 
ence is concerned, that work is already as completely accomplished as 
it ever will be. God will do nothing more. 

(4) This theory of regeneration, by the mere exercise of our native 
powers, contradicts those scriptures that attribute this work directly to God 


432 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B.A 


These passages are numerous and explicit. It is said: “ But as many 
as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, 
even to them that believe on his name; which were born, not of blood, 
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John i. 
12,13. Here “the power to become the sons of God,” or being “born,” 
is not represented to be by mental or physical influence—it is attributed 
directly to “God.” 

Again: the very terms by which this change is uniformly expressed, 
if it be not effected by a direct influence of God, are calculated to mis- 
lead. It is called a “creation,” a “translation,” “renewal,” and it is 
repeatedly expressed by the phrase, “born of God.” 

We therefore conclude that, as this theory is unphilosophical, or 
irreconcilable with the nature of things—as it is at war with the 
doctrine of total depravity—as it conflicts with the Scripture presenta- 
tion of the duty of prayer—and as it contradicts all those passages 
which attribute this work directly to God—it cannot be true. The two 
theories which we have considered err on opposite extremes—the for- 
mer, by attributing the work to God, irrespective of the agency of 
man; the latter, by attributing it entirely to man, independent of divine 
influence. 

3. The third theory of regeneration contains what we believe to be 
the Scripture view of the subject. It is embraced, as before said, in 
these two propositions: 

(1) It is a work performed by the direct and efficient operation of the 
Holy Spirit on the heart. 

(2) The Holy Spirit exerts this regenerating power only on conditions 
required of man. 

The first position, we think, needs no additional proof. On the last 
we will observe: 

(1) It cannot be maintained that the prima facie evidence of Scrip- 
ture is opposed to conditional regeneration. To quote all the passages 
which unequivocally teach this idea, would be to transcribe much of the 
sacred volume. Let it suffice that we notice the principal objection to 
this doctrine. 

It is said by Calvinists to conflict with the Scripture view of human 
depravity and salvation by grace. In reply to this objection, we remark, 
1. It might be inconsistent with the doctrine of human depravity, if it 
were contended that the sinner performs these conditions of himself, 
mdependent of divine grace; but such is not the fact. It is “God 
that worketh in us,” that we may have the ability to comply with the 
wuditions prescribed: of ourselves we can do nothing. God imparte 


Ub xxxiv.] - REGBNERATION 43 


tne grace, which we are required to improve; and when the condition 
is performed, the promise is sure. As to the second branch of the 
objection, we reply, that the conditions of regeneration cannot destroy 
the idea of grace, unless those conditions are considered meritorious. 
Grace or favor does not cease to be such because it is conferred accord- 
ing to a certain plan. The conditions of salvation do not change the 
nature of the blessing bestowed: they only describe the method of 
bestowment. 

From all that has been said, we conclude that regeneration is neither 
a work of God without the agency of man, nor a work of man without 
the influence of God, but a work of God performed on conditions required 
of man. 


28 


431 


ELEMENTS 


OF DIVINITY. 


[P.i. BA 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXIV. 


Qurstion 1. Is regeneration intimately 


16. 


connected with other leading doc- 
trines? 

In what places does the term occur 
in Scripture? 


. What is its literal import? 
. How is it to be understood in Mat- 


thew? 


. How in Titus? 
. By what other terms is regeneration 


expressed in Scripture? 


. Does regeneration consist in a his- 


torical and theoretical belief of the 
truth? 


. Does it consist in mere morality? 
. Does it consist in a mere external 


profession, and observance of the 
ordinances and external duties of 
religion? 


. Does it imply new faculties of body 


or soul? 


. How, then, may it be defined? 
. By what texts is this definition sus- 


tained ? 


. How is regeneration distinguished 


from justification and adoption? 


. Are these blessings simultaneous? 
. What three leading theories on the 


attainment of regeneration have 
been advanced? 

By what quotations is the theory of 
passive regeneration shown to be 
Calvinistic ? aaa 


. Is this theory inseparably connected 


with particular and unconditional 
election ? 


18. 


What is the second argument against 
this theory ? 


. The third? 

. The fourth? 

. The fifth? 

. The sixth? 

. Who have been the advocates of ‘he 


second theory? 


. Have they been agreed among them 


selves? 


. How is this theory shown to be un 


philosophical? 


. In what two different senses is 


the influence of the Spirit under- 
stood? 


. How is the argument for divine in- 


fluence, founded on the nature of 
things, attempted to be evaded? 


. How is the evasion met? 
. How is this theory shown to be in- 


consistent with total depravity ? 


. How does it conflict with the duty 


of prayer? 


. Wherein is it contrary to those scrip- 


tures which attribute this change 
directly to God? 


32. What are some of those scriptures? 


35 


36 
37 


3. In what two propositions is the 


Scripture theory contained ? 


. What is the principal Calvinistie 


objection to this theory? 

How is the first branch of the objec 
tion answered? 

How is the second answered? 

What is the grand concluding prop 
ovition ? 


Oh. xxxv.] ADOPTION—WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT, 435 


CHAPTER XXXV. 
ADOPTION—WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT, 


UNE of the great benefits of redemption, concomitant with justifica 
tion, is adoption, We consider— 

I. THE NATURE OF ADOPTION. 

Adoption may be defined, “that act of God’s free grace by which, upon 
our being justified by faith in Christ, we are received into the family of 
God, and entitled to the inheritance of heaven.” 

1. Adoption grows out of the fall of man, and his consequent aliena- 
tion from God. That state from which adoption is a deliverance, is 
thus described by the apostle: “Ye were without Christ, being aliens 
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of 
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” Eph. ii. 12. 
Again: “And you that were sometime alienated and enemies in your 
mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.” Col. i. 21. Into 
the condition thus described all men have been brought by sin; but 
from this state adoption is a deliverance. : 

2. Adoption implies deliverance from all servile fear. “Ye have not 
received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” Rom. viii. 15. 

3. It implies filial confidence in God, as our Father. God now gra- 
ciously receives us as his revolted but returning children, according to 
the promise of his word: “ Wherefore come out from among them, and 
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I 
will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my 
sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. 

4, Adoption follows immediately upon justification. The Spirit of 
adoption is “sent forth,” and that “into our hearts,” the very moment 
we are pardoned and born of God. Justification, regeneration, and 
adoption, though distinc’ from each other in nature, are always simul- 
taneous in occurrence. Justification removes our guilt, which is a bar- 
rier in the way of our admission into God’s family; regeneration 
changes our hearts, imparting a fitness for admission into that family ; 
anf adoption actually receives us therein, recognizing us as God’s chil 


436 HLEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [Pri B. 4. 


dren redeemed by Christ, washed and sanctified by his blood and Spirit, 
and admitted into covenant relation with God as our Father. 

5. This state entitles us to all the immunities of God’s Church on earth 
to the comforting influence of his Holy Spirit; to the guidance of his 
counsel; and to the protection of his grace; and seals us heirs of tle 
eternal inheritance of the saints in glory. How exalted the relation 
thus conferred! How precious the privileges and consolations it 
imparts! How enrapturing the hope it inspires! Well might St 
John exclaim: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, aud it doth not 
yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he sizall appear, 
we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John lil, 2. 

II. We now consider 14i8 EVIDENCE OF ADOPTION. 

This, according to the teachings of the New Testament, is to be 
found in the direct witness of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the Chris. 
tian. 

The doctrine here stated, while it has ever furnished a theme for 
sport and ridicule to the infidel world, has been denied by many pro- 
fessing the Christian name, and explained away by others. Yet we 
think that the following passages will clearly evince that it is taught in 
Scripture :— 

Rom. viii. 15, 16: “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage 
again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, 
that we are the children of God.” Gal. iv. 4,5,6: “But when the full- 
ness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, 
made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we 
might receive the adoption of sons; and because ye are sons, God hath 
sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.” 
1 John y. 10: “He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness 
m himself.” That the above passages teach that the Hol y Spirit bears 
witness to the adoption of the Christian, is undeniable. But, we inquire, 
in what sense is that winesss to be understood ? 

1. Some have contended that it is only the privilege of a “favored 
few” to know that their sins are forgiven; and that, consequently, the 
witness in question can be possessed by none others. 

To this it is a sufficient reply to say, that such view of the subject is 
pertectly arbitrary. The Scriptures make no such distinction. but 
speak of this blessing as being alike attainable by all who seek it. It 
is in reference to all who have been delivered from “the spirit of bond- 
age to fear,” and who have “ received the Spirit of adoption,” that the 
apostle declares that they are permitted to “er y, Abba, Father;” and: 


Ch xxxv.] ADUPTION—WIITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 437 


have “the Spirit itself” to “bear witness with their spirit, that they are 
the children of God.” Again, in reference to the Galatians, God is said 
to have “sent forth the Spirit of his Son into their hearts,” not because 
they are a class of Christians favored above others, but “because 
they are sons”—that is, because they are Christians in the proper sense 
of the term. And in John, “he that believeth on the Son of God” 
(not a favored part of such) is said to have “the witness in himself.” 
Hence it appears that, to restrict this privilege to a favored few of the 
people of God, is to treat with great disrespect the plain language of 
Holy Writ. 

2. Others, w..o have admitted this witness to be the common privi- 
lege of believers, have confounded the witness of the Spirit of God 
with the witness of our own spirit; and so allowed but one witness, 
while the apostle plainly teaches two. “His Spirit beareth witness ”— 
not to, but “with our spirit.” The “Spirit of God” is one witness, 
and our own spirit is another. We shall endeavor to show, in the 
farther examination of this subject, that the witness of the Spirit 
of God is not only distinct from that of our own spirit, but that it is 
direct. 

3. That we may come to a full understanding of this subject, we may 
now remark, that our justification or acceptance with God either can 
be known by us, or it cannot. To suppose that it cannot, would leave 
us in a state of remediless doubt and distress, little better than despair 
itself. Such a position would deprive the Christian of all solid comfort 
in this life, and be alike contrary to the views of all orthodox divines, 
and to the word of God itself. If, then, as we are bound to conclude, 
there is a method by which the Christian may, in this life, gain a know!- 
edge of his acceptance with God, we inquire, how is that knowledge 
obtained ? 

4, Justification, or pardon, is acknowledged to be an act of the Divine 
Mind, by which we are acquitted from the sentence of guilt, and admitted 
into the Divine favor. If so, it necessarily follows that none but God 
can know that this act has certainly been performed, unless God see 
proper in some way to give evidence of the fact. No witness can pos- 
Bibly testify beyond the extent of his own knowledge; hence it is clear 
that, as none but God can certainly know, except by testimony, that we 
are justified; s none but he can bear original testimony to the fact. 
Now, we think it will appear, upon a careful examination, that the 
indirect testimony-of the Spirit amounts substantially to the same as the 
testimony of our own spirit, and, as such, must be inadeanate to the 
furpose in hand. _ 


4358 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. jv.i. B.4 


5. By the witness of our own spirit is generally understood our con- 
sciousness of possessing those characteristics described in Scripture as con- 
stituting the Christian. 

This testimony of our own spirit, we do net possess by intuition, but 
it is derived through a process of reasoning. Thus the Bible describes 
certain moral qualities of the soul, and moral habits of life, as belong: 
ing peculiarly to the children of God. By the exercise >f our own 
consciousness, and a contemplation of our own lives, we may form an 
opinion concerning our character; then, by the exercise of our reas ™n- 
ing faculty, we may compare our character with the character described 
in Scripture as nertaining to the child of God, and rationally draw the 
conclusion that we sustain that relation. This is the only plan by which 
our own spirit can witness to the fact. Now, to say that this is also the 
gense in which we are to understand that the Spirit of God witnesses to 
our adoption, we think, is an erroneous view of the subject, as appears 
from the following considerations: 

(1) This is evidently, as already stated, to confound the two witnesses 
—to make the witness of our own spirit and that of the Spirit of God 
essentially the same, and really but one witness; whereas the Scriptures 
plainly teach that there are two witnesses—“ the Spirit of God,” in the 
heart of the Christian, “crying, Abba, Father,” and “his own spirit,” 
uniting in testimony to the same fact. 

(2) The above view of the subject appears evidently to exhibit the 
witness of the Spirit in a sense entirely inadequate to the purpose fon 
which, according to the Scriptures, it is designed. The witness of the 
Spirit is designed to give us an assurance of our adoption, so satis- 
factory as to amount to real knowledge. Now, as the forgiveness of 
sin, or adoption into the family of God, is an act of God, it follows 
that God must be the prime witness of the fact; but to suppose that 
this witness is only given in the indirect sense, as described, is in 
effect to discard the witness altogether, so far as the simple question 
of adoption is concerned. For, if the description of the Christian 
character given in Scripture by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is all 
the agency of the Spirit allowed in the witness in question, then it foi- 
lows that this witnesr does not testify at all to the adoption of any indi- 
vidual. 

The Scriptures only testify to the general truth that all who possess 
a certain moral character are the children of God; but with regard 
to the question whether this or that individual possesses that character 
or nut, they are silent. As to the simple fact of my adoption, accord- 
ing to the above theory, it is not learned from the testimony of the 


Gh. axxv.] ADOPTION—WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 439 


Spirit, but must be a matter of inference, derived through a process of 
reasoning. 

Hence, unless we presuppose the infallibility of our reasoning powers. 
we may have erred in this intellectual process; we may have formed 
an improper view of our own moral character; we may have misun- 
derstood the Scriptures in reference to the moral character peculiar to 
the children of God; or we may have blundered in the comparison 
of ourselves with the Scripture requirement, and in the conclusion, 
drawn from such comparison, that we are the children of God. In all, 
or any of these particulars, we may have erred; and if so, it follows 
that the conclusion arising from this process of ratiocination cannot 
amount to certain knowledge, but can, at best, be but probable conjec- 
ture. Therefore it is clear that, as it is the privilege of the Christian 
to know that he belongs to the family of God, it must be possible for 
him to have an evidence of the fact superior to the indirect testimony 
now in question. 

(3) Again: this indirect witness, from its very nature, cannot be 
possessed by the Christian at the time he first becomes a child of God; 
for, as it results from a consciousness of having the “fruits of the 
Spirit,” or of bringing forth those good works which flow from a living 
faith, time must be allowed for those fruits to grow, and opportunity 
afforded for those good works to be performed, before they can have an 
existence; and to suppose that we have so clear and definite a knowl- 
edge of their existence as thereby to infer our sonship, previous to their 
actual existence, is absurd. But all who “are sons,” are said to “have 
the Spirit of God’s Son in their hearts, crying, Abba, Father;” hence, this 
witness must be something more direct. and immediate than can result 
from the inferential reasoning above described. 

(4) Again: these “ fruits of the Spirit,” from which we are supposed 
to infer our adoption, from their very nature cannot precede the knowl- 
edge of our acceptance, but must flow from that knowledge. The most 
important of these fruits are “love, joy, and peace:” now, these graces 
and fruits of the Spirit, in the sense in which they are understood, can- 
not be exercised, except by such as have a knowledge of their accept- 
ance with the Lord. “We love him,” saith St. John, “because he first 
loved us.” But how could his love to us influence our love to him while 
#: have no evidence of that fact? And how can we have an evidence 
of his love to us while we are “aliens,” and enemies by wicked works? 
T: “love God,” in the filial sense of the text, is impossible to any but 
a child of God. Hence an individual must be a child of God before 
he can yield this fruit of the Spirit; and if, as St. Paul savs, all 


440 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.4 


who “are sons” have “the Spirit of adoption sent forth into their 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father,” they must have this Spirit to witness 
to their adoption before they can bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; 
consequently they cannot derive this witness from a consciousness of 
those fruits. 

The same may be said of “ peace and joy.” We do not gain a knowl- 
edge of our acceptance from a consciousness of peace and joy; but, on 
the contrary, this peace and joy result from a knowledge of our accept- 
ance. “Therefore, being justified by faith,” saith St. Paul, “we have 
peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” This peace evidently 
results from justification; and if so, that justification must be a subject 
of knowledge. A condemned criminal does not rejoice because a pardon 
has been granted, until he gains a knowledge of the fact. So it appears 
that as peace and joy are the “ fruits of the Spirit,” and as these do not 
precede, but follow, a knowledge of our acceptance, so the witness by 
which we gain this knowledge must precede the peace and joy resulting 
therefrom. 

6. By some it has been alleged “that this witness of the Spirit does 
not result from a consciousness of the fruits of the Spirit in general, but 
from a consciousness of possessing saving faith.” This scheme labors 
under several very serious difficulties. 

(1) The Scriptures give no intimation that we gain a knowledge of 
our acceptance from a consciousness that we possess faith; but every- 
where this knowledge is attributed to the conjoint testimony of the Spirit 
of God with that of our own spirit. 

(2) If we gain a knowledge of our acceptance with God from a con- 
sciousness that we possess faith, by that faith must be implied either 
faith in any conceivable degree, or faith in a certain definite degree. To 
suppose the former, would be to adopt the unscriptural and absurd 
hypothesis that every degree of faith is really justifying. To suppose 
the latter, would be to maintain that God has annexed the promise of 
pardon to faith in a certain limited and definite extent, which is con- 
trary to fact. There is, perhaps, no problem in Christian character 
more difficult to solve than the precise amount or degree of faith which 
we possess at any given time. Before we can found our knowledge of 
acceptance on our consciousness of possessing faith, we must not only 
know that there is a certain degree of faith to which God has annexed 
the promise of pardon, and what that degree of faith is, but we must 
also certainly know that we possess that definite degree of faith; both 
of which are impossible. 

(3) Again, were it true that God had annexed the promise of pardow 


Uh. xxxv.] ADOPTION—WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 441 


to a certain definite degree of faith, and that we could always certainly 
determine whether we possess that degree of faith or not, still this 
theory would lavor under the insuperable difficulty that it would make 
the knowledge of our acceptance precede our acceptance itself; in 
other words, it would involve the absurdity of teaching that we may 
know that we are accepted before we are accepted. For justifying 
faith, according to the Scriptures, precedes, and is the condition of, par- 
dion; but if a knowledge of our acceptance always accompanies justi 
fying faith, then a knowledge of our acceptance must precede that 
acceptance. In other words, we must first know that we are accepted 
before we can be accepted; so that we may be well assured that our 
knowledge of our acceptance does not result from a consciousness that 
we possess faith. 

From all that has been said, we arrive at the conclusion—that, as 
the testimony of God’s Spirit is not spoken of in Scripture as the pecu- 
liar privilege of a favored few, but as alike pertaining to all the “sons 
of God”—that, as this witness is not identical with the witness of our 
own spirit, but a distinct witness, bearing conjoint testimony with our 
own spirit—that as, according to the Scriptures, it is the privilege of 
Christians to know that they are accepted of the Lord—that, as none 
but God can bear primary testimony to this fact—that, as the indirect 
testimony of the Holy Spirit is substantially nothing but the witness of 
our own spirit—that, as such testimony is inadequate for the purpose 
for which the witness of the Spirit is designed—that, as neither a con- 
sciousness of the “fruits of the Spirit” in general, nor of faith, can 
impart a knowledge of our acceptance with God at the time the witness 
of the Spirit is said to be possessed—from all these considerations we 
arrive at the conclusion, that the witness of the Holy Spirit, as possessed 
by the Christian, must be direct and distinct in its nature from the witness 
of our own spirit. 

If called upon for a full explanation of the manner in which the 
Spirit operates so as to produce this direct witness, we are constrained 
to confess our weakness; the subject is “too wonderful for us.” “The 
wind bloweth where it listeth,’ but we cannot comprehend “whence it 
cometh or whither it goeth;” so the Spirit of God, in a manner to us 
incomprehensible, moves on the hearts of men, and bears witness to the 
believer that he is a child of God. But as to the fact of this witness, it 
is a matter expressly revealed. 

We cannot better express the sense in which we understand the fact, 
than by adopting the language of Mr. Wesley: 

“The testimony of the Spirit is an inward impression on the soul, 


442 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. Bo 4 


whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit that Iam a 
child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for 
me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled 
to God.” 

III. We will close this chapter by noticing some of the leading 
objections to the doctrine of the direct witness of the Spirit for which we 
have contended. 

1. It is objected, that “two witnesses to the same fact, if both good, are 
not needed; and if not good, they are useless.” 

To this we reply, that the two witnesses do not both depose directly 
to the same fact. The Spirit of God alone is directly and immediately 
cognizant of the fact of our adoption, and it alone bears direct testi- 
mony to that fact. Our own spirit, though a conjoint witness with the 
Spirit of God to the same fact, testifies, not directly, but indirectly. It 
witnesses to our adoption, only by assuring us that we have the direct 
witness of the Spirit of God to that fact. Thus in the hour of conver- 
sion, before we have time for good works, or the fruits of the Spirit, or 
even for engaging in a course of reasoning by which to infer our adop- 
tion by comparing our experience with the Scripture marks of regene- 
ration, the Holy Spirit directly assures us that God loves us, and freely 
accepts us in Christ Jesus: immediately upon this evidence of the par- 
doning love of God, “we love him because he first loved us,” joy and 
peace spring up in the soul, and then first we receive the witness in our 
hearts, and hear— y 


“Thy sins are forgiven! accepted thou art! 
I listened, and heaven sprung up in my heart.” 


But how soon will we have occasion for the conjoint testimony of our 
own spirit! We may be tempted to believe that this direct witness is 
all a delusion; but the witness ‘of our own spirit—our consciousness 
that we have the fruits of the Spirit—confirms us in the persuasion that 
we have not mistaken the testimony of the Spirit of God; and in this 
way the two witnesses continue their joint testimony to the fact that we 
are the children of God, so long as we “love God and keep his com- 
mandments.” 

2. It is objected, that “this doctrine involves the absurdity of a special 
revelation to every Christian, and leads to a superstitious reliance on 
impressions from our own imaginations.” 

To this we reply, that, so far as the first branch of the objection is 
concerned, it is not contended that the witness of the Spirit conveys to 
the mind any new truth not contained in the Scriptures; but merely 


Uh. xxxv.] ADOPTION—-WITNESS OF THE SPIRIT. 443 


that a special and personal application is made, by the direct agency of 
the Spirit, of truths already clearly revealed in the Bible. The direct 
influence of the Spirit in conviction does not teach the sinner that any 
thing is sin which the Bible had not declared to be such, but it so 
quickens the powers of the soul as to cause the sinner to feel that he is 
a sinner—a fact of which he previously only had a speculative knowl- 
edge. Just so the witness of the Spirit possessed by the Christian, does 
not impart to him any original truth or doctrine, but merely causes him 
to feel that the promises of pardon to the penitent believer, and the 
great Bible truths of salvation through the merits of Christ, personally 
and individually apply to him. So that, in the proper sense, there is 
no new revelation contended for, in this view of the witness of the 
Spirit. 

In reference to the datter branch of the objection, we reply, that it 
cannot be superstitious to rely on any doctrine revealed in Scripture; 
but if the Scripture doctrine of the witness of the Spirit is perverted 
by any so as to lead to a dependence on impressions resulting from their 
own imaginations, the perverters of the doctrine, and not the doctrine 
itself, are to be blamed. The direct witness of the Spirit we believe to 
be a doctrine plainly taught in Scripture; and though some, through the 
deceitfulness of sin, may pervert it to the worst of purposes, it can never, 
on that account, be surrendered, but will still be ardently maintained 
by the thousands of sincere and experimental Christians, who derive 
therefrom their highest enjoyments in this life, and their richest preli- 
bations of the life to come. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXV. 


Question 1. How is adoption de- indirect witness of the Spirit, and 
fined? the witness of our own spirit? 

2. By what scriptures is the witness of | 6. Does the indirect witness free us from 
the Spirit proved? doubt? 

3. What is the first view given of this | 7. How is it shown that neither a con- 
witness, and how is it refuted? The sciousness of the fruits of the Spirit 
second, and how refuted? in general, nor of faith, can give a 

4. What is the correct theory of this knowledge of our acceptance, at the 
witness? time the Spirit is said to bear ite 


6 What is the distinction between the witness? 


444 ELEMEN'S OF DIVINITY. (Poi, Bo4 


CHAPTER XXXVI. 
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 


Ox this subject we cannot do better than give the following treatise 
by the Rev. John Wesley: 

Many large volumes have been already published on this important 
subject. But the very length of them makes them hard to be under- 
stood, or even purchased, by common readers. A short, plain treatise 
on this head is what serious men have long desired, and what is here 
offered to those whom God has endowed with love and meekness of 
wisdom. 

By the saints, I understand those who are holy or righteous in the 
judgment of God himself; those who are endued with the faith that 
purifies the heart—that produces a good conscience; those who are 
grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible Church ; those 
who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, “I am the vine, 
ye are the branches;” those who so effectually know Christ, as by 
that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world; those who 
see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, and who 
have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness and the 
fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son of God; those 
who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant—those to whom all or 
any of these characters belong, ! mean by the term saints. : 

Can any of these fall away? By falling away, we mean, not barely 
falling into sin, This, it is granted, they may. But can they fall 
totally? Can any of these so fall from God as to perish everlastingly? 

I am sensible either side of this question is attended with great diffi- 
culties, such as reason alone could never remove. Therefore “to the 
law and to the testimony.” Let the living oracles decide; and if these 
speak for us, we neither seek nor want farther witness. 

On this authority, I believe a saint may fall away; that one who is 
holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself may nevertheless so 
fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 

I. For thus saith the Lord: “When the righteous turneth away from 


Uh. xxxvi.] PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 445 


his righteousness, and committeth iniquity ; in his trespass that he hath 
trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.” 
Ezek, xviii. 24. 

That this is to be understood of eternal death, appears from the 26th 
verse: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness 
and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; (here is temporal death ;) 
for his iniquity that he hath done he shall die.” (Here is death 
eternal.) 

It appears rarther from the whole scope of the chapter, which is to 
prove, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Verse 4. If you say, 
“The soul here means the body,” I answer, that will die, whether you 
sin or no. 

Again, thus saith the Lord: “ When I shall say to the righteous, that 
he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, (yea, or to 
that promise as absolute and unconditional,) and commit iniquity, all 
his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that 
he hath committed he shall die for it.” Ezek. xxxiii. 13. 

Again: “When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and 
committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.” Verse 18. Therefore 
one who is holy and righteous, in the judgment of God himself, may yet 
so fall as to perish everlastingly. 

“ But how is this consistent with what God declared elsewhere? ‘If 
his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments, I will 
visit their offenses with the rod, and their sin with scourges. Neverthe- 
less, my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my 
truth to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is 
goue out of my lips. I have sworn once by my holiness, that I will not 
fail David.’” Ps, Ixxxix. 30-35. 

I answer, there is no manner of inconsistency between one declaration 
and the other. The prophet declares the just judgment of God against 
every righteous man who falls from his righteousness. The Psalmist 
declares the old loving kindnesses which God sware unto David in his 
truth: “I have found,” saith he, “David, my servant; with my holy 
oil have I anointed him. My hand shall hold him fast, and my arm 
shall strengthen him. His seed also will I make to endure forever, and 
his throne as the days of heaven.” Verses 20, 21, 29, it follows: “But 
if his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; never: 
theless my loving kindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer 
my truth to fail. My covenant will I not break. I will not fail David. 
His seed shall endure forever, and kis throne as the sun before me’ 
Verse 30, ete. 


446 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.4 


May not every man see that the covenant here spoken of r?lates 
wholly to David and his seed, or children? Where, then, is the incon- 
sistency between the most absolute promise made to a particular family, 
and that solemn account which God has here given of his way of deal- 
ing with all mankind? 

Besides, the very covenant mentioned in these words is not absolute, 
but conditional. The condition of repentance, in case of forsaking 
God’s law, was implied, though not expressed; and so strongly implied 
that, this condition failing—not being performed—God did also fail 
David. He did “alter the thing that had gone out of his lips,” and 
yet without any impeachment of his truth. He “abhorred and forsook 
his anointed,” (verse 38,) the seed of David, whose throne, if they 
had repented, should have been “as the days of heaven.” He did 
“break the covenant of his servant, and cast his crown to the ground.” 
Verse 39. So vainly are these words of the Psalmist brought to con- 
tradict the plain, full testimony of the prophet! 

Nor is there any contradiction between this testimony of God by 
Ezekiel, and those words which he spake by Jeremiah: “I have loved 
thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving kindness have I 
drawn thee.” For do these words assert that no righteous man ever 
turns from his righteousness? No such thing. They do not touch the 
question, but simply declare God’s love to the Jewish Church. T 0 see 
this in the clearest light, you need only read over the whole sentence: 
“At the same time, saith the Lord, I will be the God of all the families 
of Israel, and they shall be my people. Thus saith the Lord, The peo- 
ple which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even 
Israel, when I caused him to rest. The Lord hath appeared of old unto 
me, (saith the prophet, speaking in the person of Israel,) saying, I have 
loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving kindness have 
I drawn thee. Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O vir- 
gin of Israel.” Jer. xxxi. 1-4, 

Suffer me here to observe, once for all, a fallacy which is constantly 
used by almost all writers on this point. They perpetually beg the 
question, by applying to particular persons assertions, or prophecies, 
which relate only to the Church in general; and some of them only to 
the Jewish Church and nation, as distinguished from all other people. 

If you say, “But it was particularly revealed to me, that God had 
loved me with an everlasting love,” I answer, suppese it was, (which 
might bear a dispute,) it proves no more, at the most, than that you, in 
particular, shall persevere; but does not effect the general question, 
whether others shall, or shall not. 


Ch. xxxvi.] PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 447 


II. One who is endued with the faith that purifies the heart, that pro: 
duces a good conscience, may nevertheless so fall frora God as to perish 
everlastingly. 

For thus saith the inspired apostle: “War a good warfare; holding 
faith, and a good conscience; which some haviag put away, concerning 
faith have made shipwreck.” 1 Tim. i. 18, 18. 

Observe, 1. These men (such as Hytaeneus and Alexander) had 
once the faith that purifies the heart—<kat produces a good conscieuce , 
which they once had, or they could not lave “ put it away.” 

Observe, 2. They “made shipwreck” of the faith, which nevessarily 
implies the total and final loss of it For a vessel cave wrecked can 
never be recovered. It is totally aad finally lost. 

And the apostle himself, in his Second Epistle tu ‘fimuhy, meations 
one of these two as irrecoverabiy lost. “Alexander (says he) did me 
much evil: the Lord shall rewurd him according to bis works.” 2 Tim. 
iv. 14. Therefore one who is endued with the faita that. purifies the 
heart, that produces a good conscience, may ueve:tueless so fall from 
God as to perish everlastingly. 

“But how can this be reconciled with the words of our Lord: ‘ He 
that believeth shall be saved’?” 

Do you think these words mean, “He that ‘selieves” at this moment 
“shall” certainly and inevitably “be saved?” f/f this interpretation be 
good, then, by all the rules of speech, the otter part of the sentence 
must mean, “He” that does “not believe” at this moment, “shall” cer. 
tainly and inevitably “be damned.” Therefore that.interpretation can- 
not be good. The plain meaning, ther, of the whole sentence is: “He 
that believeth (if he continue in faith) shall be saved; he that believ- 
eth not (if he continue in unbelief) shall be damned.” 

“But does not Christ say elsewhere, ‘He that believeth hath ever- 
lasting life’? (John iii. 86;) and, ‘He that believeth on him that sent 
me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is 
passed from death unto life’?” Verse 24. 

I answer, 1. The love of God is everlasting life. It is, in substance, 
the life of heaven. Now, every one that believes, loves God, and there- 
fore “hath everlasting life.” 2. Every one that believes “is” therefore 
“passed from death (spiritual death) unto life.’ 8. “Shall not come 
into condemnation,” if he endureth in the faith unto the end: accord- 
ing to our Lord’s own words, “ He that endureth unto the end shall be 
saved ;” and, “Verily I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he 
shall never see death.” John viii. 51. 

III. These who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual, 


448 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.. B.4 


invisible Church, may nevertheless so full from God as to perish evevr- 
lastingly. For thus saith the apostle: “Some of the branches are 
broken off, and thou art grafted in among them, and with them par 
takest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree. Be not high-a inded, 
but fear; if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he 
spare not thee. Behold the goodness and severity of God! On them 
which fell, severity; but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in his 
goodness ; otherwise thou shalt be cut off.” Rom. xi. 17, 20-22. 

We may observe here— 

1. The persons spoken to were actually grafted into the olive-tree. 

2. This olive-tree is not barely the outward visible Church, but the 
uvisible, consisting of holy believers. So the text: “If the first-fruit 
be holy, the lump is holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.” 
Verse 16. And, “Because of unbelief, they were broken off, and thou 
standest by faith.” 

3. These holy believers were still liable to be cut off from the invis- 
ible Church into which they were then grafted. 

4. Here is not the least intimation of those who were so cut off being 
ever grafted in again. Therefore those who are grafted into the good 
olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible Church, may nevertheless so fall from 
God as to perish everlastingly. 

“But how does this agree with the 29th verse: ‘The gifts and calling 
of God are without repentance’?” 

The preceding verse shows: “As touching the election, (the uncondi- 
tional election of the Jewish nation,) they are beloved for the fathers’ 
sake”—for the sake of their forefathers. It follows (in proof of this, 
that “they are beloved for the fathers’ sake,”) that God has still bless- 
ings in store for the Jewish nation: “For the gifts and calling of God 
are without repentance ;” for God doth not repent of any blessings he 
hath given them, or any privileges he hath called them to. The words 
here referred to were originally spoken with a peculiar regard to these 
national blessings. “God is nota man, that he should lie, neither the 
son of man, that he should repent.” Num. xxiii. 19. 

“But do not you hereby make God changeable? Whereas ‘ with 
him is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.’ James i. 17.” By 
no means. God is unchangeably holy; therefore he always loveth 
“righteousness, and hateth iniquity.” He is unchangeably good ; there- 
fore he pardoneth all that “repent, and believe the gospel.” And he ig 
unchangeably just; therefore he “rewardeth every man according to 
his works.” But all this hinders not his resisting, when they are proud, 
those to whom he gave grace when they were humble. Nay, his un 


Ch. xxxvi.] PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 449 


vhangeableness itself requires that, if they grow high-minded, God 
should cut them off: that there should be a proportionable change in all 
the divine dispensations toward them. 

“But how then is God faithful?” I answer, in fulfilling every prom- 
ise which he hath made, to all to whom it is made, all who fulfill the 
condition of that promise. More particularly, 1. “God is faithful” in 
that “he will not suffer you to be tempted above that you are able to 
bear.” 1 Cor.x.13. 2. “The Lord is faithful to establish and keep you 
from evil;” (if you put your trust in him ;) from all the evil which you 
might otherwise suffer, through “unreasonable and wicked men.” 2 
‘Thess. iii. 2,3. 3. “Quench not the Spirit; hold fast that which is 
ocd ; abstain from all appearance of evil; and your whole spirit, soul, 
and body, shall be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” J 
Thess. v.19, ete. 4. Be not disobedient unto the heavenly calling; and 
“God is faithful, by whom ye were called, to confirm you unto the end, 
that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. 
i. 8,9. Yet, notwithstanding all this, unless you fulfill the condition, 
you cannot attain the promise. 

“Nay, but are not ‘all the promises, yea and amen’?” They are 
firm as the pillars of heaven. Perform the condition, and the promise 
is sure. Believe, and thou shalt be saved. 

“But many promises are absolute and unconditional.” In many, 
the condition is not expressed. But this does not prove there is none 
implied. No promises can be expressed in a more absolute form, than 
those above cited from the eighty-ninth Psalm. And yet we have seen 
a condition was implied even there, though none was expressed. 

“ But there is no condition, either expressed or implied, in those words 
of St. Paul: ‘I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor height, 
nor depth, nor any creature, shall be able to separate us from the love 
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.’” Rom. viii. 38, 39. 

Suppose there is not, (which will bear dispute,) yet what will this 
prove? Just thus much—that the apostle was at that time fully per- 
suaded of his own perseverance. And I doubt not but many believers 
at this day have the very same persuasion, termed in Scripture, “The 
full assurance of hope.” But this does not prove that every believer 

all persevere, any more than that every believer is thus fully persuaded 
of his perseverance. 

IV. Those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, 
“T am the vine, ye are the branches,” may nevertheless so fall from 
God as to perish everlastingly. 

29 


450 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PriBes, 


For thus suith our blessed Lord himself: “I am the true vine, and 
my Father is the husbandman. Every branc’: in me that beareth not 
fruit, he taketh it away. I am the vine, ye are the branches. If a 
man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; and 
men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” 
John xv. 1-6. 

Here we may observe, 1. The persons spoken of were in Christ— 
branches of the true vine. 2. Some of these branches abide not iP 
Christ, but the Father taketh them away. 93. The branches which 
abide not are cast forth—cast out from Christ and his Church. 4. They 
are not only cast forth, but withered ; consequentiy never grafted in 
again; nay, 5. They are not only cast forth and withered, but also cast 
into the fire; and, 6. They are burned. It is not possible for words 
more strongly to declare, that even those who are now branches in the 
true vine may yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 

By this clear, indisputable declaration of our Lord, we may interpret 
those which might be otherwise liable to dispute; wherein it is certain, 
whatever he meant besides, he did not mean to contradict himself. For 
example: “This is the Father’s will, that of all which he hath given 
me I should lose nothing.” Most sure, all that God hath given him, or, 
as it is expressed in the next verse, “every one which believeth on him” 
—hamely, to the end—he “ will raise up at the last day,” to reign with 
him forever. 

Again: “I am the living bread; if any man eat of this bread, (by 
faith,) he shall live forever.” John vi.51, True—if he continue to eat 
thereof. And who can doubt of it? 

Again: “ My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow 
me. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, 
neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.” John x. 27-29. 

In the preceding text, the condition is only implied; in this, it is 
plainly expressed. They are my sheep that hear my voice, that follow 
me in all holiness. And “if ye do those things, ye shall never fall.” 
None shall “ pluck you out of my hand.” 

Again: “Having loved his own which were in the world, he loved 
them unto the end.” John xiii. 1. “ Having loved his own ” (namely, 
he apostles, as the very next words, “which were in the world,” evi- 
dently show,) “he loved them unto the end” of his life, and manifested 
that love to the last. 

Once more: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those 
whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are one.” John 
xvii. 11. 


Ok. xxxVvi.] PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 451 


Great stress has been laid upon this text; and it has been hence 
inferred, that all those whom the Father had given him (a phrase fre- 
quently occurring in this chapter) must infallibly persevere to the end. 

And yet, in the very next verse, our Lord himself declares that one 
of those whom the Father had given him did not persevere unto the 
end, but perished everlastingly. His own words are: “ Those that thov 
gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdi 
ticn.” John xvii. 12. So one even of these was finally lost!—a 
demonstration that the phrase, “those whom thou hast given me,” signi- 
fies here, if not in most other places too, the twelve apostles, and them 
only. 

On this occasion, I cannot but observe another common instance of 
begging the question—of taking for granted what ought to be proved: 
it is usually laid down as an indisputable truth, that whatever our Lord 
speaks to, or of, his apostles, is to be applied to all believers. But this 
cannot be allowed by any who impartially search the Scriptures. They 
cannot allow, without clear and particular proof, that any one of those 
texts which related primarily to the apostles, (as all men grant,) belong 
to any but them. 

V. Those who so effectually know Christ as by that knowledge to 
have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those 
pollutions, and perish everlastingly. 

For thus saith the Apostle Peter: “If, after they have escaped the 
pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ, (the only possible way of escaping them,) they are again 
entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than 
the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known the 
way of righteousness, than, after they had known it, to turn from the 
holy commandment delivered unto them.” 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21. 

That the “knowledge of the way of righteousness” which they nad 
attained, was an inward, experimental knowledge, is evident from that 
other expression, they had “escaped the pollutions of the world” —an 
expression parallel to that in the preceding chapter, verse 4, “having 
escaped the corruption which is in the world.” And in both chapters, 
this effect is- ascribed to the same cause —termed in the first, “the 
knowledge of him who hath called us to glory and virtue ” in the 
second, more explicitly, “ the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ.” 

And yet they lost that experimental knowledge of Christ, and the 
way of rightsousness; they fell back into the same pollutions they had 
escaped, and were again “entangled therein and overcome.” They 


>< 


452 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 4. 


“turned from the holy commandment delivered to them,” so that their 
“latter end was worse than their beginning.” 

Therefore those who so effectually know Christ as by that knowledge 
to have escaped the pollutions of the world, may yet fall back into those 
pollutions, and perish everlastingly. 

And this is perfectly consistent with St. Peter’s words, in the first 
chapter of his former Epistle: “Who are kept by the power of God 
through faith unto salvation.” Undoubtedly so are all they who ever 
attain eternal salvation. It is the power of God only, and not our own, 
by which we are kept one day, or one hour. 

VI. Those who “see the light of the glory of God in the face of 
Jesus Christ,” and who have been “made partakers of the Holy Ghost,” 
of the witness and the fruits of the Spirit, may nevertheless so fall from 
God as to perish everlastingly. For thus saith the inspired writer to 
the Hebrews: “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, 
and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the 
Holy Ghost, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance; 
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him 
to an open shame.” Heb. vi. 4, 6. 

Must not every unprejudiced person see the expressions here used are 
so strong and clear, that they cannot, without gross and palpable wrest- 
ing, be understood of any but true believers? 

They “were once enlightened” — an expression familiar with the 
apostle, and never by him applied to any but believers. So, “The God 
of our Lord Jesus Christ give unto you the spirit of wisdom and reve 
lation: the eyes of your understanding being enlightened, that ye may 
know what is the hope of his calling, and what is the exceeding great. 
ness of his power to us-ward that believe.” Eph. i. 17-19. So again: 
“God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined 
into our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God 
in the face of Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor. iv. 6. This is a light which no 
unbelievers have. They are utter strangers to such enlightening. “The 
god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, 
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should shine unto them.” 
Verse 4. 

“They had tasted of the heavenly gift, (emphatically so called,) and 
were made partakers of the Holy Ghost.” So St. Peter likewise couples 
them together: “Be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” (Acts ii. 38,) whereby the love of 
God was shed abroad in their hearts, with all the other fruits of the 
Spirit. Yea, it is remarkable that our Lord himself, in hig grand 


Ch. xxxvi.] PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. 458 


commission to St Paul, (to which the apostle probably alludes in these 
words,) comprises all these three particulars: “T send thee to open 
their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power 
of Satan unto God, (here contracted into that one expression, “ they 
were enlightened,”) that they may receive forgiveness of sins, (“the 
heavenly gift,”) and an inheritance among them which are sanctified ;” 
(Acts xxvi. 18;) which are made “ partakers of the Holy Ghost” —of 
all the sanctifying influences of the Spirit. 

The expression, “They tasted of the heavenly gift,” is taken from the 
Psalmist: “Taste and see that the Lord is good.” Psalm xxxiv. 8. As 
if he had said, Be ye as assured of his love as of any thing you see with 
your eyes; and let the assurance thereof be sweet to your soul, as 
honey is to your tongue. 

And yet those who had been thus “ enlightened,” had “tasted” this 
“gift,” and been thus “partakers of the Holy Ghost,” so “fell away” 
that it was “impossible to renew them again to repentance.” 

“ But the apostle makes only a supposition: ‘If they shall fall away.’” 

I answer, the apostle makes no supposition at all. There is no of in 
the original. The words are, ’Adbvaroy rove dak pwricbévtag Kai 
rapaneoévtac—that is, in plain English, “ It is impossible to renew 
again unto repentance those who were once enlightened and have fallen 
away ;” therefore they must perish everlastingly. 

“But if so, then farewell all my comfort.” 

Then your comfort depends on a poor foundation. My comfort stands 
not on any opinion, either that a believer can or cannot fall away, not 
on the remembrance of any thing wrought in me yesterday; but on 
what is to-day; on my present knowledge of God in Christ, reconciling 
me to himself; on my now beholding the light of the glory of God in 
the face of Jesus Christ; walking in the light as he is in the light, and 
having fellowship with the Father and with the Son. My comfort is, 
that through grace I now believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and that his 
Spirit doth bear witness with my spirit that Iam a child -f God. I 
take comfort in this, and this only, that I see Jesus at the right hand 
of God; that I personally for myself, and not for another, have a hope 
full of immortality; that I feel the love of God shed abroad in my 
heart, being crucified to the world, and the world crucified to me. My 
rejoicing is this, the testimony of my conscience, that in simplicity and — 
godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, ] 
have my conversation in the world. 

Go and find, if you can, a more solid joy, a more blissful comfort, 
on this side heaven. But this comfort is not shaken, be that opinion 


454 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY [P.i. B. 4 


truc or faise, whether the saints in general can v. cannot fall. If you 
take up with any comfort short of this, you lean on the staff of a broken 
reed, which not only will not bear your weight, but will enter into your 
hand and pierce you. 

VII. Those who live by faith may yet fall from God, and perish 
everlastingly, 

For thus saith the same inspired writer: “The just shall live by 
faith ; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have uo pleasure in 
him.” Heb. x. 38. “The just”—the Justified persons- -“ shall live by 
faith,” even now shall he live the life which is hid with Christ in God ; 
and if he endure unto the end, he shall live with God forever. “But 
if any man draw back,” saith the Lord, “ my soul shall have no pleas- 
ure in him”—that is, I will utterly cast him off; and accordingly the 
drawing back here spoken of is termed, in the verse immediately fol- 
lowing, “drawing back to perdition.” 

“But the person supposed to draw back is not the same with him that 
is said to live by faith.” 

I answer, 1. Who is it, then? Can any man draw back from faith 
who never came to it? But, 

2. Had the text been fairly translated, there had been no pretense for 
this objection; for the original runs thus: ’O dtxatoc éx TrioTEWwe Choerat 
nal éav brrooteiAnrm. If 6 dixatoc, “the just man that lives by faith,” 
(so the expression necessarily implies, there being no other nominative 
of the verb,) “draws back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.” 

“But the apostle adds: ‘We are not of them who draw back unto 
perdition.’” And what will you infer from thence? This is so far from 
contradicting what has been observed before, that it manifestly con- 
firms it. It is a farther proof that there are those “ who draw back 
unto perdition,” although the apostle was not of that number. There- 
fore those who live by faith may yet fall from God, and perish e- erlast- 
ingly. 

“But does not God say to every one that lives by faith, ‘T will never 
leave thee nor forsake thee’ ?” 

The whole sentence runs thus: “Let your conversation be without 
covetousness, and be content with such things as ye have; for he hath 
said, I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” True—provided “ your 
conversation be without covetousness,” and ye “be content with such 
things as ye have.” Then you may “ boldly say, The Lord is my helper, 
and J will not fear what man shall do unto me.” 

Do you not see, 1. That this promise, as here recited, relates wholly 
tw temporal things? 2. That, even thus taken, it is not absulute, but 


Ch. xxxvi.] PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. HS 3) 


conditional? 3. That the condition is expressly mentioned in the very 
same sentence? 

VILL Those who are sanc.ified by the blood of the covenant may so 
fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 

For thus again saith the apostle: “If we sin willfully after we have 
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice 
for sin; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indig 
nation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ 
law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much 
sorer punishment shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under 
foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, 
wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing?” Heb. x. 26-29. 

It is undeniably plain, 1. That the person mentioned here was once 
sanctified by the blood of the covenant. 2. That he afterward, by known, 
willful sin, trod under foot the Son of God. 3. That he hereby in- 
curred a sorer punishment than death, namely, death everlasting. 

Therefore those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant may 
yet so fall as to perish everlastingly. 

“What! Can the blood of Christ burn in hell? Or can the pur- 
chase of the blood of Christ go thither?” 

I answer, 1. The blood of Christ cannot burn in hell, no more than 
it can be spilled on the earth. The heavens must contain both his flesh 
and blood until the restitution of all things. But, 

9. If the oracles of God are true, one who was purchased by the 
blood of Christ may go thither. For he that was sanctified by the blood 
of Christ was purchased by the blood of Christ. But one who was 
sanctified by the blood of Christ may nevertheless go to hell—may fall 
under that fiery indignation which shall forever devour the adversaries. 

“Can a child of God, then, go to hell? Or can a man be a child of 
God to-day, and a child of the devil to-morrow? If God is our Father 
once, is he not our Father always?” 

I answer, 1. A child of God—that is, a true believer—(for he that 
believeth is born of God,) while he continues a true believer, cannot 
go to hell. 2. If a believer make shipwreck of the faith, he is no 
longer a child of God; and then he may go to hell, yea, and certainly 
will, if he continues in unbelief. 3. If a believer may make shipwreck 
of the faith, then a man that believes now may be an unbeliever some 
time hence; yea, very possibly to-morrow ; but if so, he who is a child of 
God to-day, may be a child of the devil to-morrow. For, 4. God is the 
Father of them that believe, so long as they believe; but the devil is 
the father of them that believe not, whether they did once believe or no. 


456 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [Prin Boa, 


The sum of all is this: If the Scriptures are true, those wno are holy 
or righteous in the judgment of God himself: those who are endued 
with the faith that purifies the heart, that produces a good conscience ; 
those who are grafted into the good olive-tree, the spiritual, invisible 
Church ; those who are branches of the true vine, of whom Christ says, 
“Tam the vine, ye are the branches;” those who so effectually know 
Christ as by that knowledge to have escaped the pollutions of the world; 
those who see the light of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ, 
and who have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, of the witness 
and of the fruits of the Spirit; those who live by faith in the Son of 
God ; those who are sanctified by the blood of the covenant, may never: 
theless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly. 

Therefore let him that standeth take heed lest he fall. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXVI. 


Question 1. What is understood by the | 10. Objections answered ? 


term saints ? 11. How is it proved that those whe 
2. What is meant by falling away? effectually know Christ may 
3. How is it proved that one who is holy fall ? 

or righteous in the judgment of God | 19. Objections answered ? 

may fall? 13. How is it proved that those who 
4. What objections to this are answered? have been made partakers of the 
5. How is it shown that one endued Holy Ghost may finally fall? 

with faith that purifies the heart] 14. How is it proved that those who 

may fall? “live by faith” inay fall and per- 
6. What objections are answered ? ish ? 


7. How is it shown that those who are | 15. Objections answered ? 
grafted into the spiritual, invisible | 16. How is it proved that those who are 
Church, may fall ? sanctified by the blood of the cov- 
8 What objections are answered ? enant may fall and perish? 
How is it proved that “branches of | 17. What objections are answered ? 
the true vine” may perish ever-| 18. How is the whole matter sammed 
lastingly ? up? 


Oh. xxxVvii.] CURISTIAN PERFECTION. 4517 


CHAPTER XXXVII. 


CHRISTIAN PERFECTION 


BENEATH that cloud of error and superstition which, during the dark 
ages, had settled upon the Christian Church, many of the vita] doe. 
trines of evangelical religion had become almost, or entirely, forgotten 
In the sixteenth century, Martin Luther was the honored instrument, in 
the divine hand, by whom the great Pauline doctrine of “ justification by 
faith” was once more resuscitated, and held up before the Church in the 
clear light of gospel day. 

Two centuries had scarcely elapsed since the development of the 
Lutheran Reformation, till the Protestant Churches were slumbering in 
the cold embrace of dead formality, while the muddy waters of infidel- 
ity, with a destructive influence, were sweeping over Protestant Chris- 
tendom. Such was the state of religion in Europe about a hundred 
and thirty years ago, when God raised up John Wesley in England, 
not only to stem the torrent of infidelity throughout the United King- 
dom, but to promote a revival of “Scripture holiness” in the Churches. 
As Luther, two centuries before, had stood forth as a mighty champion for 
“justification by faith,” so Wesley now appeared, not only as the de- 
fender of that doctrine, but also as an instrument under God to revive 
and set clearly before the Church the apostolic doctrine of “Christian 
perfection.” For his advocacy of this doctrine he was greatly perse- 
cuted and abused, as a setter forth of new and strange things. But he 
triumphantly maintained that the doctrine of Christian perfection was 
not only taught by Christ and his apostles, but was to be found in the 
standards of most of the Reformed Churches, especially in those of the 
Church of England. 

What we here propose is, a brief view of the doctrine in question, as 
exhibited in Scripture. It is expressed in the new Testament by three 
different words—holiness, sanctification, and perfection. Hence we shall 
use as synonymous, in this connection, the phrases, perfected holiness, 
entire sanctification, and Christian perfection. In the investigation of 
this subject, we propose to consider— 

1. The wmport of Christian perfection. 


455 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.4 


2. Its Scripture proof. 

3. Its attainment. 

4. Reply to some objections. 

I, What is implied in Christian perfection ? 

1. We first define it negatively. 

@) It does not imply absolute perfection. This pertains to God alone, 
and is infinitely beyond the reach of all created beings. God is the 
grax 1 center and source of all good and of all perfection. In this 
absolute sense, as “there is none good but one, that is God,” so there is 
noue perfect but one, that is God. Created beings and things can only 
be perfect in a relative sense—that is, according to their nature and 
after their kind. Men and angels may be approximating toward the 
perfections of God for all eternity, without the possibility of ever attain- 
ing unto them. God, in all his perfections, will still be infinitely beyond 
their reach. 

(2) It does not imply angelic perfection. This belongs only to the 
angels who “have “kept their first estate.” They are styled “holy ;” 
they “excel in strength;” and are “ministers” of God “that do his 
pleasure.” “All their native faculties are unimpaired; their under- 
standing, in particular, is still a lamp of light; their apprehension of 
all things clear and distinct; and their judgment always true. Hence, 
though their knowledge is limited, (for they are creatures,) though 
they are ignorant of innumerable things, yet they are not liable to 
mistake ; their knowledge is perfect in its kind. And as their affections 
are all constantly guided by their unerring understanding, so that all 
their actions are suitable thereto, so they do every moment, not their 
own will, but the good and acceptable will of God.” (Wesley.) Hence 
it is impossible for man—frail, infirm, and fallen man, whose “ foun- 
dation is in the dust”—in his lapsed state, ever to reach angelic per- 
fection. 

(3) It does not imply Adamic perfection. Man was made only “a 
little lower than the angels,” and doubtless possessed faculties of body 
and soul in a high degree of perfection ; for God pronounced all his 
works of creation “very good.” There was then no blemish or defect. 
Dwelling amid those peaceful bowers, the light of truth, undimmed by 
sin, poured upon his intellect. With him, all was innocence, purity, 
and love. Though, in the world of glory, sinners redeemed by the 
blood of Christ may, for aught we know, approach nearer the throne 
and rise higher in bliss than the angels, yet, in this mortal state, even 
A:lamic perfection is far beyond their power of attainment. 

(4) It does not imply perfection in knowledge. In this world the 


Oh. xxxvii.| CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 459 


intellect is deranged by sin, and clouded with ignorance. We can know, 
but “in part.” And from defective understanding, improper words, 
tempers, and actions, must necessarily flow. We may have erroneous 
opinions as to the character and conduct of others; and, of course, our 
behavior toward them will be accordingly improper. Not only so, but 
this error in judgment may give a wrong bias to our affections: we may 
ove others less or more than they deserve. These infirmities and im 
perfections will ever cause us, in many instances, to fail in doing the 
“perfect will of God.” Hence we are constantly dependent cn the 
atonement of Christ; nor, without it, can we stand a moment justified 
before God. 

(5) It does not exempt us from temptation. Our first parents, though 
“in the image of God,” and dwelling amid the perfection of paradise, 
were tempted, and fell into sin. Our immaculate Redeemer also, 
though declaring, “I and my Father are one,” “was in all points 
tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Heb. iv.15. Hence it is clear 
that liability to temptation is consistent with the highest state of moral 
purity and perfection. 

2. We now define Christian perfection affirmatively: what does it 
imply ? 

We may have difficulty in defining this doctrine to our satisfaction 
—we may differ in opinion as to what it implies; but to discard or 
denounce Christian perfection, is to take a position in direct and pal- 
pable antagonism to the Bible. That Christian perfection is taught in 
the New Testament, admits of no debate—the language of Christ and 
his apostles is direct and unequivocal. But the question is, How shall 
we understand it? 

It is, indeed, singular that the term perfection, so plain and simple 
when applied to any other subject, should, even with many who call 
themselves Christians, become so offensive the moment it is connected 
with religion. As the sainted Fletcher once demanded—“ Perfection ! 
why should the harmless phrase offend us? Why should that lovely 
word frighten us?” We can speak of perfection in reference to mathe- 
matics, and all is right: we are readily understood. We speak of a 
right line, or a line perfectly straight; of a perfect triangle; a perfect 
square; a perfect circle; and in all this we offend no one—all compre 
hend our meaning perfectly. We speak of a perfect seed; a perfect bud ; 
a perfect plant; a perfect tree; a perfect apple; a perfect egg; ard in 
all such cases the meaning is clear and definite. Because a seed is per- 
fect, no one expects it to exhibit the qualities of the plant or tree: because 
the plant or tree is perfect, no one looks to find in it the characteristics 


«60 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pi B4, 


of the bud; nor in the bud, the beauties or fragrance of the bloom; 
nor in the bloom, the excellent qualities of the ripe fruit. 

Now, we ask, should we not be as rational when we speak of religion, 
as when we speak of nature? Is not the same absolutely perfect Being, 
who is the author of nature, also the author of religion? Did not He 
who perfumed the bud, who tinted the rose, and penciled the lily, also 
devise the more glorious system of Christianity? If He could stamp 
every particle of nature with a perfection suited to its kind, can He not 
endue “ pure religion” with a degree of perfection worthy the character 
of its divine Author? Surely, if we will apply our reason in reference 
to religion, as we do in regard to other subjects, we need not be so stag- 
gered at the mention of Christian perfection. We proceed, then, to 
state that, in general terms, Christian perfection implies a full develop- 
ment of the principles and practice of Christianity in the hearts and 
lives of those who embrace it. It is a higher state of religious attain- 
ment than regeneration. It is regeneration grown to maturity. While 
one regenerated is a “babe,” a sanctified Christian, in the full sense of 
that term, is a “father in Christ.”: Yet it should not be forgotten that 
ranctification, in its initial state, is synonymous with regeneration ; while, 
in its perfected state, it is synonymous with Christian perfection. Thus, 
in the following passage, St. Paul speaks of all justified persons as also 
sanctified: “ But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justi- 
fied in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 
But in another place (1 Thess. v. 23) he prays for justified persons that 
God may sanctify them wholly—clearly implying that entire sanctification 
is an advanced, or matured, state in religious attainment, which it is 
the duty and privilege of all justified persons earnestly to seek by faith 
and prayer. 

Mr. Fletcher says: “ We give the name of ‘Christian perfection’ to 
that maturity of grace and holiness which established adult believers 
attain to under the Christian dispensation ; and thus we distinguish that 
maturity of grace, both from the ripeness of grace which belongs to the 
dispensation of the Jews below us, and from the ripeness of glory which 
belongs to departed saints above us. Hence it appears that by ‘Christian 
perfection’ we mean nothing but the cluster and maturity of the graces 
which compose the Christian character in the Church militant. In 
other words, Christian perfection is a spiritual constellation, made up 
of these gracious stars: perfect repentance, perfect faith, perfect humil- 
ity, perfect meekness, perfect self-denial, perfect resignation, perfect 
hope, perfect charity for our visible enemies, as well as for our earthly 
relations; and, above all, perfect love for our invisible God, through 


Uh. xxxVvii.] CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 461 


the explicit knowledge of our Mediator, Jesus Christ. And as th.s last 
star is always accompanied by all the others, as Jupiter is by his satel- 
lites, we frequently use, as St. John, the phrase ‘ perfect love’ instead of 
the word perfection; understanding by it the pure love of God shed 
abroad in the hearts of established believers by the Holy Ghost, which 
is abundantly given them under the fullness of the Christian dispen- 
sation.” 

But, to be more particular, Christian perfection implies— 

(1). Perfected holiness. In an absolute sense, (as before stated,) holiness 
belongs to God alone. He is holy in a high and absolute sense, inappli- 
cable to any creature. Holiness sometimes implies no more than conse- 
cration to a sacred use. In this acceptation, Jerusalem is styled “the 
holy city ;” the temple, the “holy tem ple;” and its sacred vessels, “holy 
vessels,” But there is yet another sense in which the term holy is used; 
it is applied relatively to angels and to saints, denoting moral purity. 
In this relative sense, Christians are required to be holy; and in this 
acceptation, we understand it as synonymous with Christian perfec. 
tion. 

(2) Christian perfection implies entire sanctification. The term sanc- 
tification is not always used in the same sense. It sometimes merely 
implies consecration to a sacred use. In this sense, “God blessed the 
seventh day, and sanctified it.” Gen. ii. 8. In this sense also, the 
vemple, the priests, the altar, the vessels, the sacrifices, etc., were sancti« 
fied. But the term sanctification sometimes implies the purifying or 
cleansing of sinners from the guilt, power, and pollution of sin, by the 
blood of Christ, and operation of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, all 
Justified persons are also sanctified; and regeneration is sanctification 
begun. Indeed, regeneration and entire sanctification differ onl y indegree: 
they are the same in nature. Just as the dime is inferior to the dollar, 
though both of the same metal; so is regeneration inferior to entire 
sanctification, though both of the same nature. Sanctification, in the 
sense of entire consecration to God and a complete cleansing of the soul 
from “all unrighteousness,” is synonymous with Christian perfection. 

(3) Christian perfection implies perfect love, and the maturity of all the 
graces of the Christian character. 

From what has been said, it will be perceived that perfected holiness, 
entire sanctification, and perfect love, are synonymous terms, all imply- 
ing the same as Christian perfection; and that they denote a state of 
gracious attainment higher than is implied in regeneration and justifi 
cation. But it yet remains that we bring this subject to the test of 
Scripture investigation. 


462 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.A 


II. How may the doctrine of Christian perfection be proved by 
Scripture ? 

1. By the divine precepts. “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.” 
Gen. xvii. 1. “ Hear, O Israel: Thou shalt love the Lord thy Gud 
with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” 
Deut. vi. 5. “And now, Israel, what does the Lord thy God require of 
thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to love 
him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy 
soul.” Deut. x. 12. “Serve God with a perfect heart and a willing 
mind.” 1 Chron, xxviii. 9. “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your 
Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matt. v.48. “He that loveth 
‘nother hath fulfilled the law; . . . therefore dove is the fulfilling of the 
law.” Rom. xiii. 8-10. “ For the end of the commandment is charity ; 
out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” 
1 Tim.i. 5. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. . . . Thou shalt love thy neighe 
bor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the 
prophets.” Matt. xxii. 37-40. 

Here Jehovah explicitly commands Abraham to be “ perfect.” This 
demonstrates that, with him, perfection was attainable. God could 
not command an impossibility. And this perfection related to Abra- 
ham’s future life, embracing his entire history from that hour ta the 
end of his earthly course. “Walk before me,” said God, “and be thou 
perfect” —that is, be perfect in thy walk—thy entire character an‘ life. 

None can read the foregoing scriptures without seeing that loving God 
with all our ability is an express command of both Testanents — of 
Moses and the prophets; of Christ and the apostles. Now, 1s this love 
to God and our neighbor comprises the whole law of God, and as it is 
solemnly and explicitly enjoined, it follows, first, that it isa duty possible 
for all to comply with; secondly, that in complying with this broad 
requirement, they fulfill their whole duty, and, of course, attain unto 
that high religious state implied in perfected holiness, entire sanctifica- 
tion, or Christian perfection. 

2. This doctrine is proved by the divine promises. 

“The Lord thy God will circumcise i hine heart, and the heart of thy 
seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy 
soul, that thou mayest live.” Deut. xxx. 6. “Come now, and let us 
reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they 
shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall 
be as wool.” Isa. i. 18. “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, 


Oh. Xxxvii.] CHRISTIAN PERFRCTION. 468 


will I cleanse you; a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you; and I will take away the heart of stone out of 
your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my 
Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall 
keep my judgments, and do them.” Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27. “ Blessed be 
the Lord God of Israel, for he hath raised up a horn of salvation for 
us, as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, that we, being 
delivered out of the hands of our enemies, might serve him without 
fear, in holiness and righteousness before him all the days of our life.” 
Luke i. 68-75. “If any man love me, he will keep my words; and 
my Father will love him, and we will come to him, and make our abode 
with him.” John xiv. 23. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and 
just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 
1 John i. 9. 

In these promises, the Christian is abundantly assured of all the gra- 
cious assistance necessary to enable him to obey the divine precepts. 
Indeed, were these promises not thus expressly given, the fact that the 
command is given, were enough. Each command of God implies the 
promise of grace to obey it. God here promises so to “circumcise,” or 
change, the heart, that the great command of perfect love shall be 
complied with. He promises that, under the gospel dispensation, 
believers shall be “cleansed from all their filthiness, and from all their 
idols.” 

Again, Zacharias prophesied that, under the reign of Christ, his fol- 
lowers would be enabled to “serve him without (tormenting) fear, in 
holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of their life.” Surely, 
here is the promise of perfected holiness, entire sanctification, and Chris- 
tian perfection ! 

And how full are the promises of Jesus! To every one that loves 
him, he and his “ Father will come,” and they will make their “abode 
with him ;” thus filling his heart with the fullness of his presence and 
grace. 

Again: we are not only promised that “if we confess our sins” they 
shall be forgiven, but we shall be “cleansed from all unrighteousness.” 
Is not this complete deliverance? Can it imply less than entire sancti- 
fication—than perfected ‘holiness—than Christian perfection ? 

3. The prayers of Scripture prove this doctrine. 

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in 
thee, that they also may be one in us. I in them, and thou in me, that 
they may be made perfect in one.” John xvii. 21-23. “God dwelleth 
in us, and his love is perfected in us.” 1 John iv. 12. “And the verv 


464 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 4. 


God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit, 
and soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” 1 
Thess. v. 23, 24. “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a 
right spirit within me.” Ps. li. 10. “For this cause I bow my knees 
unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family 
in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you according to the 
riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the 
inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, 
being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all 
saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to 
know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled 
with all the fullness of God.” Eph. iii. 14-19. 

In reference to our Saviour’s prayer, we ask, Can this prayer be 
answered, and Christians not be entirely sanctified—perfected in holi- 
ness and in love? St. John says God’s “love is perfected in us.” Now, 
if the blessing of “ perfect love” be not the privilege of Christians under 
the gospel, what sensible construction can be put upon this text? Look 
also at the prayers of David and St. Paul—a “clean heart,” to be 
sanctified “ wholly,” and to be “ filled with all the fullness of God,” are 
the objects for which they pray. Did they pray according to the will 
of God? Are we authorized to assume that they prayed for impossi- 
bilities, and thus, under the divine influence, offered up solemn petitions 
for things which it was absolutely impossible—contrary to God's will— 
that they should obtain? Shall we assume that this solemn mockery 
was dictated by God’s Spirit? As if designedly to silence this impious 
cavil, St. Paul adds to his petition these words of assurance: “ Faithful 
is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” 

Hence we conclude that if Christ and his holy prophets and apostles 
have not set the example of absurdly praying for blessings, contrary to 
God’s will, knowing that it was impossible for their prayers to be an- 
swered, then the blessing of perfected holiness, entire sanctification, or 
Christian perfection, is the birthright of every Christian who will seek 
it with his whole heart. 

4. The exhortations of Scripture prove this doctrine: “ Let us go on 
unto perfection.” Heb. vi. 1. 

“Having, therefore, these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse 
vurselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in 
the fear of God.” 2 Cor. vii.1. “T beseech you, therefore, brethren, by 
the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, 
holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Rom 


Ch. xxxVvii.] CHRISTIAN PERFECTION, 465 


xii, 1. “ But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be per- 
fect and entire, wanting nothing.” James i. 4. 

Here St. Paul exhorts Christians to “go on unto pertection;” te 
“cleanse” themselves from “all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per- 
fecting holiness in the fear of God ;” and St. James exhorts his brethren 
to aim at the attainment of a state in grace so exalted that they shall 
be “ perfect and entire, wanting nothing.” Did they exhort them to aim 
at impossibilities? Did they mock their brethren, by knowingly excit- 
ing in them vain, delusive hopes? Or were these inspired apostles 
ignorant on the subject of which they wrote? Hither they were them- 
selves deluded, they willfully deluded their brethren, or the blessing of 
perfected holiness, entire sanctification, or Christian perfection, is attain- 
able under the gospel. 

5. The examples recorded in Scripture of persons having attained Chris- 
tian perfection, may be adduced as proof of the doctrine. 

“ By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death; and 
was not found, because God had translated him; for before his transla- 
tion he had this testimony, that he pleased God.” Heb. xi. 5. It is 
recorded that Job “was perfect and upright, and one that feared God 
and eschewed evil.” Job i. 1. It is said also that Zacharias and Eliz- 
abeth “ were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments 
and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Luke i. 6. Of Nathanael our 
Saviour exclaimed: “ Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” 
John i. 47. St. Paul says: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them 
that are perfect.” 1 Cor. ii. 6. “Let us therefore, as many as be per- 
fect, be thus minded.” Phil. iii. 15. 

Enoch, “ before his translation ””—that is, while living in the world— 
“had this testimony, that he pleased God.” Not that he pleased God 
in some things; that were faint praise; but that “he pleased God”— 
without qualification —no exception is intimated; and we are not 
authorized to suppose any. And as a seal and reward of his upright 
and blameless character and conduct, he “was translated that he 
should not see death.” 

If our Saviour pronounced Nathanael “an Israelite indeed, in whom 
is no guile,” who shall lay any thing to the charge of that elect saint? 
But St. Paul speaks of living Christians who were “ perfect.” Either, 
then, this inspired apostle was deceived as to the character of the per- 
sons to whom he referred, or he taught the doctrine of Christian per- 
fection. 

III. The attainment of Christian perfection. 

1. When may this great blessing be attained? On this question 

30 


466 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.4 


there has been much dispute among Christians. Many have contended 
that Christian perfection is not attainable till the bonr cf death ; others; 
while denying that it is the general privilege of Christians in this life, 
have admitted that it may be the privilege of a favored few, to whom 
God, for special reasons, may see fit to grant peculiar favors; but even 
in such cases they consider it impossible for this blessing to be retained, 
except for a short period. 

Some of the insuperable objections to this last theory are the follow 
ing: 

1. It is entirely unsupported by Scripture. 

That this high state of grace is intended only for a favored class of 
Christians, is nowhere intimated in God’s word. Surely no Christian 
should feel at liberty 10 patronize a religious theory thus destitute of 
any Scripture basis! 

2. This theory is contrary to the general tenor of Scripture on the 
subject. As we have already shown, the precepts, the promises, the 
exhortations, and the prayers, relating to this high state of religious 
attainment, are without restriction. The command to “love God with 
all the heart,” and to “love our neighbor as ourselves,” and to “be 
perfect, as our Father who is in heaven is perfect ;” the promise, “ From 
all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you,” and “he 
is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all : 
unrighteousness ;” the exhortation, “ Let us go on unto perfection,” and 
“Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per- 
fecting holiness in the fear of God;” and the prayer, “The very God 
of peace sanctify you wholly,” and, “that ye may be filled with all the 
fullness of God” —all these commands, promises, exhortations, and 
prayers are general, and unrestricted to classes of Christians, in their 
character and application. They pertain alike to the Jew and to the 
Gentile, to the high and to the Jow; to all classes and to all orders. 
Indeed, in this respect, the “ways of God are equal.” Such are the 
principles on which the gospel system of salvation is conducted, that 
the highest state of religious experience is within the reach of “the least 
of all saints.” 

But is this state in religious attainment possible in this life? Should 
we seek it, aim at it, pray for it, and expect it, in this life; or must 
we consider it impossible for us to attain to it, till the hour of death? 
Here is an important practical question, which demands a careful con- 
sideration. 

That Christian perfection, entire sanctification, or perfected holiness, 
(whichever of these terms we choose to use,) is attainable in this life, 


Ch, xxxVvii.] CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 467 


whenever we comply with the conditions prescribed in the gospel, we 
firmly believe, for the following reasons: 

1. This doctrine harmonizes wi : inciple on which God’s 
moral government over mankind, as exhibited in the gospel, is _con-, 
ducted.—Everywhere man is treated as a moral agent. Good and evil, 
life and death, are set before him; and he is commanded to reject evil 
and death, and to choose good and life. Where is it intimated that, in 
this requirement, there is any restriction? that he only has ability, 
through grace, to reject the evil and to choose the good, to a partial 
extent? that when he has advanced to a certain stage in this process, 
the wheels of his chariot are so locked that he can progress no farther? 
Has his free agency been destroyed because he has become a child of 
God? While in the guilt of sin, was he free, through grace, to repent, 
believe, and be converted ; but now that he is a justified child of God, 
has he lost his free agency; or has the grace of God been so far with- 
drawn from him, that he cannot go on from one degree of faith, and 
zeal, and love, and holiness, to another, till he shall appear perfect 
before God, exhibiting in their fullness, maturity, and perfection, all the 
graces of the Christian character? 

Unless God has made a radical change, either in the character of man, 
or in his government over him, if we were free before conversion to 
reject evil and choose good, we cannot be less so after conversion. If, 
through grace, we forsake one sin, we may forsake all sin. If we may 
be cleansed from one sin, we may be cleansed from all sin. If we may 
keep one commandment, we may, through grace, “ keep the whole law” 
—that is, the law of faith and love, under which we are placed under 
the gospel. Again: if it is impossible for us to avoid sinning, how can 
we be held responsible for that which is unavoidable? If we may 
advance to one degree of holiness or sanctification, which we attain 
when we are justified, why may we not, on the same principle, “ go-on 
unto perfection” ? 

It is a maxim of the gospel, as clear as the sun, that there is no 
excuse for sin. Even the heathens, amid their idolatry, are “ without 
excuse.” If justified persons are unable to attain “ perfected holiness” 
in this life, what but sin can prevent it? and if that sin is unavoidable, 
what better apology for sin can be imagined? No just law, human or 
divine, can punish an intelligent agent for an unavoidable act. If con- 
tinuing in sin, “that grace may abound,” after conversion, is a necessity 
from which we cannot escape, then, for that sin, we cannot be punished. 
Yea, more, the very position involves an absurdity. Sin, to be personal 
and actual, so as ‘o deserve punishment, must be avoidable. Hence we 


46% ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pi Ba 


conclude, that unless the moral agency of man, or God’s government 
over him, is radically changed when we are justified, we may, from that 
hour, “go on unto perfection ;” and whenever we comply with the con- 
ditions prescribed in the gospel —that is, whenever we exercise the 
requisite degree of faith, be it one day or ten years after our conversion 
—that moment God will “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 

2. That Christian_perfection is attainable in_this life, at any yeriod. 
we believe, because the ary_hy is_is inconsistent with those 
commands, promises,exhortations,and-prayers-connected with the doe- 

__trine in question. 

All the commands, promises, exhortations, and prayers, recorded in 
Scripture, except where the context explicitly shows to the contrary, are 
in the present tense—they are intended to take effect from the moment 
of their delivery. If God says, “Be ye holy,” he does not mean when 
we die, or next year; nay, nor to-morrow: he means now—“to day, if 
ye will hear his voice” —* now is the accepted time; behold! now is the 
day of salvation” Now is emphatically God’s time. Any one may 
perceive that the Scriptures referred to cannot, without the utmost vio- 
lence, be construed as not applying to the present time. When our 
Saviour said, “Be ye, therefore, perfect,” how absurd to suppose he 
merely intended to teach the necessity of perfection at death! It would 
be no worse to contend that when he said, “Seek, and ye shall find; ask, 
and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened,” he only designed 
to instruct his disciples in reference to their duty in the hour of death. 

Equally absurd would it be, without authority, to construe the prom: 
ises, entreaties, or prayers, in the same way. When our Lord prom: 
ised, saying, “C that labor, and are heavy laden, 

_and T will_giveyou—-est,” who ever dreamed that he was merely prom- 
ising rest at death? When St. James (i. 4) exhorted his brethren, 
saying, “ Let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and 
entire, wanting nothing,” how preposterous the supposition, that he was 
‘merely encouraging them in reference to their death-bed duties! When 
David prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God,” was he looking 
forward to the hour of death for an answer to his petition? How 

_absurd the hypothesis! Even so, to construe all these commands, 
promises, exhortations, and prayers, referring to the blessing of perfect 
holiness, perfect love, or Christian perfection, as not contemplating any 
realization this side the hour of dissolution, would be the climax of 
absurdity. 

3. Our next reason for believing that Christian perfection is attainable 
in this life, is founded on the explicit declarations of Scripture. 


Uh. xxxvii.] CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 469 


(1) The Scriptures 
erfe i i tal of 
through life—entirely inapplicable to the hour of death. 

St. Paul, speaking of the destruction of the body of sin, adds, “that 
henceforth we should nct_serve sin’—that is, through all subsequent life, 
extending from the hour in which this great triumph over sin is gained, 
to the hour of death. In a passage already quoted, (1 Thess. v. 23,) 
the apostle, after having prayed for his brethren that they might be 
sanctified “ wholly,” prays farther, that they may “be preserved _blame- _ 
less our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

(2) Again: the fruits of the Spirit, which, all must admit, Christians 
are required to exhibit in their maturity and perfection, are, in their 
nature, such that they can_be th " in life. These fruits 
are thus enumerated: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, 
long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” Gal. 
v. 22, 23. No sober-minded Christian can suppose that it is intended 
that this constellation of Christian graces shall shine forth in its matu- 
rity only in death. But if we are to exhibit these fruits in life, then, 
of necessity, to the same extent must we be exempt from the opposite 
evils, And if Christianity does not require us to bring forth these fruits 
to perfection during life, then it will follow that we are not required to 
be delivered from the opposite evils. Thus, if we are not required to 
be perfect in love, we may indulge in sinful anger; if we are not 
required to be perfect in temperance, then we may indulge in intemper- 
ance—and so of the rest. 

That these fruits of the Spirit are required to be exhibited, not par- 
tially, but in their perfection, in the lives of Christians, cannot be con- 
troverted, without the utmost violence to the Scriptures. And if so, 
then Christian perfection, which implies these fruits in their maturity, 
is puaipaule in this life. 

(3) If erfection be not attai 


follow, either that death,“the last enemy that shall be Neath oyed,”is the — 
cBctont agent in fe works or that. the blood of Christ, and_the_influ- 


ence of the Holy Spirit, are_1 
be_in_life—both of which positivns are too unscriptural to be enter- 


tained. 


(4) The Scriptures_explicitly teach, in so many words, that_this 
blessing is attainable—in—this—hfe> St. John declares: “ Herein is our 
love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; 


because as_he (Christ) 7s, so_are_we, in_this world,” 1 John iv.17. In 


thir passage, the apostle, as though he kad foreseen that some would 


470 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.4 


oppose this doctrine, has furnished us as direct an answer to the objec- 
tion now before us, as language can express. “If we love one another, 
God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.” 1 John iv. 12. The 
apostle was evidently here speaking of living Christians, including him- 
self in the number, and not of such only as were on the bed of death. 


“And every man that sath this _hope in him, purificth himself, even a8 
te (Christ) is pure.” 1 John iii. 8. “But if we walk in the light, as 


he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood 
of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John i. 7. This 
entire cleansing from sin is not promised at death, but evidently takes 
place now—while “we walk in the light.” “Follow peace with all 
men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” Heb. 
xii. 14. The holiness here spoken of can only mean “ perfected holi- 
ness ;” and this is to be followed, not at death, but now, while mingling 
with the affairs of this life. 

Such, according to God’s word, are the glorious privileges of all the 
children of God, even in this world. They not only “know God” in the 
remission of “past sins,” but following “on to know the Lord,” they 
may “know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge,” and “be 
filled with all the fullness of God.” It matters but little whether this 
eminent state of holiness be gained by a bold, energetic, and determined 
exercise of faith and prayer, or by a more gradual process—whether it 
be instantaneous or gradual, or both the one and the other. The great 
matter is, with each and all of us, that we lose no time, but arise at 
once, and “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling 
of God in Christ Jesus.” 

[V. OBsEcTIONS ANSWERED. 


L. It is objected that entire sanctification is impossible in_this life, 
because of the union “ the soul with Te BA a 

It is assumed that the body 1s so depraved by sin, that so long as the 
soul remains in the body, sin must remain in the soul. 

We ask, Where is the Scripture proof of this position? Several 
texts are relied on for this purpose; but it can easily be shown that, 


unless perverted, they furnish not the slightest support to the position 
in question. The language of St. Pail to the Romans is quoted: “For 


we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold_under-sin. 
pee Ee which I do, I allow not; ... but-what I hate, that do I. . 


he inward man; but I see another 


Ww of my 
een captivity iz the pity MES RE oe he Rom. vii. 
“[4-23. Again: “The carnal mind 4s-enmity against God ; for it is not 


Ch. xxxvii. CHRISTIAN PERFECTION. 471 


subject to the law of God, nei i ; 
are in the flesh cannot please God.” Rom. viii. 7, 8. 

The argument against Christian perfection, deduced from these scrip- 
tures, is this: “That the apostle, in this place, is describing his own 
condition as one “sold under sin,” even while he is the converted apos: 
tle; and as he, converted apostle as he was, could not escape the 
dominion of sin, because he was still in the flesh, so neither can any 
’ others, so long as they remain in the body.” 

Now we venture to affirm that this is a gross perversion of the serip- 
ture in question. The apostle, in the seventh chapter to the Romans, is 
not describing his own state, as the converted apostle, but he is person- 
ating the convicted sinner, seeking in vain for deliverance from sin under 


the bondage of the law. It is ae necessar for us carefully to read the 
and the truth of this remark will be seen. In the sels chapter, the 
justified_believer is “freed from sin "— “his old man” (sinful nature) 
is crucified with him, (Christ,) that the body of sim might be destroyed, 


that henceforth he should not serve sin—he is “made free from_sin,’ 
and has his “fruit unto holiness” Could the apostle so flatly contradict 
himself, as in the next chapter to represent the same character as “ sold 
under sin,” and in “captivity to the law of sin”? The hypothesis is 
inadmissible. 

Another error in this argument against perfection is, that the term 
“flesh” in the phrase, “They that are in the flesh cannot please God,” 
means the body. It certainly cannot mean the body; for then no living 
man could ever please God. It means the sinful, depraved nature—the 
“carnal mind”—the “old man”—that must be “ put off,” or “crucified 
with Christ,” before we can “ walk in newness of life.” 


2. a is Ee against Christian perfection, that “the attainment of 
it J dr ist_uo longer necessary.” 


ae — e our state in grace, we are depeé on 
Christ, from moment to moment, for all we have and are. And in pro- 
portion as we cease to exercise, or cast off, that faith in the merits of 
Christ by which the blessing in question has been received, at the 
tame time, and to the same extent, will that blessing be withheld; se 
that the most advanced Christian may ever exclaim— 


“Every moment, Lord, I want 
The merit of thy death!” 


‘Lion destroys the 


3. It is objected, that “ thi 
bal. tin religion. 


472 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. B.4 


Certainly it does not. Adam in paradise may have been as perfect 
in his character as the purest and most exalted angel, yet he was prob- 
ably far below the holy angels in capacity, whether for loving God, or 
enjoying happiness. In nature, perfection in any particular depart- 
ment does not close the door against all farther advancement; then 


why should it in religion? A_perfect seed may advance, first, to a per- 


fect blade, then to a perfect ear, and then to perfect corn in the ear. 
Just so the Christian, though “perfected in love”=—loving God with all 
his capacity—may still continue to “grow in grace, and in the knowl- 
edge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ;” and while his capacity 
thus enlarges, while his knowledge increases, and his spiritual powers 
expand, he may still be advancing in grace, sinking deeper, and still 
deeper, in the depths of infinite holiness and love; and rising higher, 
and still higher, in the heights of ineffable joy and felicity. 

Indeed, we have no authority to fix any limit to the advancement 
of redeemed and sanctified spirits, either in this world or the next. 
It is their duty and privilege ever to be advancing, not only to “perfect 
holiness in the fear of God,” but ever after to be reaching forth unto 
still more exalted degrees of perfection in holiness, and knowledge, 
and love, and bliss, till, released from the tenement of clay, and entered 
upon the glories of immortality, they shall, to all eternity, be approxi- 
mating nearer, and still nearer, to the source and fountain of infinite 
perfection, and bliss, and glory. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXVII. 


Que. rton 1. What three different words| 6. What two erroneons views are stated 


are used in the New Testament for concerning the time when this 
Christian perfection ? blessing may be attained, and how 
2. How is this doctrine defined nega- are they refuted? 
tively # 7. What three reasons are given for 
3. low is it defined affirmatively, in believing that Christian perfecticn 
general terms? is attainable in this life? 
4. iow is it more particularly de-| 8. What is the first objection to the doc- 
fined ? trine named, and how is it an- 
b. How is the doctrine proved from swered ? 
the precepts of Scripture? From} 9. What is the second objection, and 
the pro~uses* From the prayers? how is it answered ? 


From the exhortations? From the | 10. What is the last objection, and how 
examples? is it anawered? 


PART I.—DOCTRINES OF CHRISTIANITY, 


BOOK V.—THE FUTURE STATE. 


CHAPTER XXXVIII. 


IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL— PHILOSOPHICAL OBJECTIONS 
CONSIDERED. 


ARE we, as conscious beings, to survive the ravages of death? And 
if so, what will be the character of our future destiny? These are 
questions of the greatest importance, and the deepest interest. They 
lie at the foundation of all religion, and have engaged the most serious 
and earnest inquiry of the wisest and best of mankind in every age. A 
firm belief in the doctrines of a hereafter inspires the mind with a deep 
sense of the importance and dignity of our nature, and is the most 
powerful incentive to the practice of moral and religious duty. 

For the establishment of this doctrine, the main reliance of the 
Christian is on the teachings of inspiration. We propose, however, in 
our investigation, to pursue the following order: first, to remove some 
objections; secondly, to consider some presumptive proofs, derived from 
the light of nature; thirdly, to exhibit the positive evidence of Scrip- 
ture. 

The principal objectio 
ality have been fe j inci ilosophy, 
termed materialism. 

This peculiar phase of skepticism, with slight diversity of sentiment 
in reference to unimportant points, has had its advocates in almost 
every age, commencing anterior to the origin of Christianity. 

Among the ancient Jews, the skeptical notions of the Sadducces were 
but a development of the theory of materialism. The same pernicious 
error, as early as the third century, had infested the Christian Church, 

(473) 


ya 


474 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5. 


as appears from its refutation in the writings of Origen. And although 
the system has never been countenanced by the great body of the 
Church, but viewed as an insidious and pernicious type of infidelity, 
yet up to the present time it has its advocates among some professing 
the Christian name. 

The materialism of the present day is substantially identical with the 
theory of infidel philosophers of all the past ages, and of all countries, 
whether Jewish, Pagan, Mohammedan, or Christian. It was advocated 
by Epicurus, Lucretius, and others of the atheistic school; and in 
more modern times, it has been zealously espoused by Spinoza, Hobbes 
Hume, Volney, Voltaire, and the mass of infidel writers. 

1. The theory of materialism, in whatever minutie its patrons may 


differ, is substantially this: it teaches that man_is not a_compot 


’ 


a that consequently, at the di lon of the body, the mind, or aoul 
niust cease to exist. 


That this whole theory is flatly contradictory to Scripture, we will 
snow, in its proper place. At present, we examine it in the light of 
philosophy. 

From our own consciousness, we learn that man is not only possessed 
of a body, or material part, but of a soul, or immaterial part. We 
derive our knowledge of material things through the medium of sensa- 
tion, and of immaterial things through the medium of consciousness. Of 
the essence of matter and of mind we are alike ignorant. All we 
know of them is what we learn of their properties through the mediums 
just named. By the exercise of external sensation, we know that we 
have bodies, or a substantive, material nature, possessing certain prop- 
erties, such as impenetrability, extension, divisibility, figure, inertia, 
attraction, and indestructibility. Of the existence of these properties 
the constitution of our nature will not allow us to doubt, for the evi- 
dence is direct through our own senses. Thus, by the senses of sight 
and touch, we know that we have a material nature, susceptible of 
division, and possessing a certain figure; we know that wherever there 
is division or figure, there must be something divided or figured. How- 
ever ignorant, therefore, we may be of the essence of that substance, 
we cannot doubt its existence. 

By an analogous process, we arrive at a Enowledae of the existence 
of our souls, or ibe immaterial part of our nature. What sensation is 
tw the body, consciousness is to the soul. By an exercise of conscious: 


Ch. xxxviii.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 475 


ness, we know that we are possessed of souls, or an immaterial nature, 
endued with certain properties, or faculties, such as understanding, 
memory, power of volition, self-determination, self-action, and the affec- 
tions. Of the existence of these faculties, the constitution of our nature 
will not allow us to doubt; for the evidence is direct through our own 
consciousness. Thus we reason, remember, choose, love, etc., and there 
fore know there must be something which reasons, remembers, chooses, 
loves, etc. However ignorant we may be of the essence of that sub- 
stance, we cannot doubt its existence. That substance, a knowledge of 
which is thus gained, is what we mean by the soul. Thus we think it 
clear that to doubt the existence of the soul is as unphilosophical as to 
doubt the existence of the body. To doubt, in either case, is to yield 
ourselves up to the absurdities of universal skepticism, and assume an 
attitude of hostility to both revelation and common sense. 

The materialist may be ready enough to admit the existence of the 
soul, as well as that of the body, provided only we allow his position 
that they are not two distinct things, but are both of the same material 
substance. Here is the point of controversy. Materialism, while 
admitting the existence of the soul, avers that it is not distinct from 
the body in its substance, but is nothing but matter in a peculiar state 
of organization. 

Here, we undertake to say, is the grand blunder of materialism: it 
plants itself on the unphilosophical assumption, that two things—mat- 
terand mind—having no single property in common, are essentially the 
same. Whereas not the first property of matter can belong to mind, 
nor can the first property of mind belong to matter. 

Impenetrability is a property of matter. By this we mean that such 
is the essential nature of every material substance, that it excludes all 
other matter from the space it occupies. Can this be also a property 
of mind? Unless it is, mind cannot be material. Take any given 
vessel and fill it with water, and the same vessel cannot, at the same 
time, be filled with wine. The water must be displaced before the ves- 
sel can receive the wine. Why is this the case? Simply because water 
and wine are both material substances, and impenetrability is a prop 
erty of all matter. Now, if mind be not possessed of the same essential 
property, unless the plainest principle of natural philosophy be re 
nounced, it cannot be a material substance. The attempt to conceive 
of mind as being restricted to a limited space, and so filling that space 
that nothing else can occupy it at the same time, shocks all common 
sense. 

It is easv to conceive of any material substance so filling a givep 


476 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5, 


space as to exclude every thing else; but to conceive of mind as being 
subject to a similar law, is a task beyond our powers. 

Extension is a property of matter. Does it pertain to mind? Mat- 
ter has length, breadth, and thickness, and may be measured or 
weighed ; but what meaning shall we attach to the phrase, a pound of 
mindi—a square yard of mind—ten miles of mind? Indeed, it seems to 
us that no man can worship at the shrine of materialism, without 
renouncing common sense. 

Figure is a property of matter. Is mind of a certain figure? Is it 
a circle, a square, a triangle, or a parallelogram ? 

Divisibility is a property of matter. But is it also a property of 
mind? Can you take a square foot of mind, and divide it into a thou- 
sand distinct parts, each constituting a distinct and separate mental 
lump, having all the essential properties of the original square foot? 

Inertia is a property of matter. Mere lifeless matter can only move 
as acted upon by extrinsic physical force. And for one material sub- 
stance to act upon another, they must be in contact. Can this law per- 
tain to mind? Paul, though absent in body from his brethren, was 
present in spirit, What material force impelled his mind to leap 
the bounds of space in a moment, and mingle with his brethren at a 
distance? If our own senses teach us that certain properties pertain to 
matter, does not our own consciousness teach us, with equal certainty, 
that those properties do not belong to mind? 

But let us look at the properties and faculties of mind, and see if 


they can be predicated of matter. Can matter think, reason, compare, 


re? Has it understanding ? In all 


_Mere matter, given evidenc server that it was 
; cepabla of thiugh<ot vesdou datat-in )i[esuc atatede aneaamn 


[In all the experiments of chemistry, and the inventions and operations 
of mechanics, where has been exhibited any combination, arrange- 
ment, adjustment, or juxtaposition of the particles of matter, making 
the least approximation toward the creation of a conscious thinking 
machine ? 

If our common sense teaches us that matter is possessed of proper- 
ties that do not pertain to mind, and that mind is possessed of proper- 
ties that do not inhere in matter, does not the same common sense 
teach us, with equal certainty, that matter is not mind, and that mind 
is not matter? 

Now, we appeal to every man’s own consciousness, as evidence that 
he possesses a power capable of thought, reason, memory, choice, will, 


Ch. xxxviii.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 477 


love, hatred, joy, and grief; and that this power is not a faculty 
of his material nature. Every one knows he does not think with his 
foot, nor reason with his hand, nor grieve with his muscles. I may will 
to move my hand or my foot, but at the same time J am sure I do not 
will with either. 

Admit that the reasoning power resides in, or is connected with, the 
brain; that will not prove that the brain is that power. We may be 
conscious that the thinking process is carried on within the head, but 
farther than this consciousness cannot go. We are no more conscious 
that the brain thinks and wills, than that these operations are performed 
by the bones, the muscles, or the blood. ‘The soul is unquestionably, ia 
a way to us inscrutable, united with the body; and the brain is proba- 
bly, not only the point of union, buy the organ through which the 
process of intellection is conducted; but being matter, and nothing but 
matter, it is not the intelligent agent that works the machine. The 
brain can no more think or will of itself, than the locomotive can move 
the train without the steam. 

That the brain is mere matter, all admit; but is matter possessed of 
intelligence? This is the point in dispute. That intelligence is not an 
essential property of matter; that it does not pertain to matter as such, 
has been proved. If it be said that intelligence is the result of the 
organization of matter, we reply, that no arrangement or combination 
can add to any substance whatever essential qualities not inherent in 
it. Take from matter any one of its essential qualities, and it instantly 
ceases to be matter, and has become something else. In the same way, 
add any thing to matter which is not essential to it as matter, and what- 
ever that added something be, it cannot be matter; for if you add the 
same to the same, it still can be nothing but the same. The same essential 
properties may be piled upon each other to any extent we please, but 
we cannot thereby add to the number of essential properties. ‘Thus, we 
may take a lump of matter of any supposed dimensions, and divide it 
into ten thousand pieces, and each one of those particles will retain all 
the essential properties of the original lump; no more, and no less 
Or if you take the same original lump of matter, and instead of divid- 
ing it, add to it ten thousand lumps of the same kind, and, however you 
may combine them, they can only possess the same essential properties 
which each lump possessed in itself before they were combined. 

Among the millions of the modifications and combinations of materia) 
substances which have been effected by the skill, ingenuity, art, or labor 
of man, or which the world has ever witnessed, from the birth of crea- 
tion to the present hour, no particle of matter, whether great or smal] 


478 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B 8. 


whether simple or compound, whether rude and misshapen, or refined 
and polished, has ever been known, which did not possess the same 
essential properties—no more, and no less—with every other particle of 
matter in the universe. If, therefore, any thing has been added to 
matter by which a property not essential to matter has resulted, that 
added something could not have been material. To suppose the intro- 
duction of a new essential property, without the addition of an essen- 
tially different substance, is thus seen to be contrary to the established 
principles of the philosophy of nature. If thought, reason, or intelli- 
gence, be not an essential property of matter, it cannot be made such. 
To suppose it had become such, would imply, either that matter, desti- 
tute of thought, reason, or intelligence, is not matter, or that matter, 
endued with thought, reason, or intelligence, is more than matter: either 
of which would be fatal to materialism. Hence, as thought, reason, 
and intelligence, are essential properties of the human soul, but are not 
essential properties of matter, it necessarily follows that the soul cannot 
be a material substance. 

But let us look still farther at the properties of mind, and see 
if common sense can allow that they pertain to mere organized 
tnatter. 

How wonderful is the faculty of memory! What a vast_store-house 
of knowledge may be treasured up by that power! If mind be a mate- 
Took, t tab, abc that apr ARut hog ea cee ae rae aa ae ata 
the Universe cannot_limit the flight of human—thought,and_yet_upon 
the tablet of memory is recorded the speculations of the mind, and the 
“flights of. lights of theimagination, throughout this immense—range-——Can- so 
immeasurable a material fabric be inclosed_within-a-human-skull ? 

And_yet, stranger still, the _mind—knows—how—to—call_up_these 
reminiscences-at-pleasure. What material hand-hes-conceated—within_ 
the brain that_can discern the proper-time-te-touch_the cord, to turn 
the ‘Key, on to sould ‘the nates tha Gail Satan at pest sper ples of 


“the min iat the 


S mind itself is an immaterial, inteHigent,and-self-active agent,and—all 


is plain. This spiritual essence can sit upon its throne, and work the 
wonderful brain-machinery, guided by its own inherent and self-active 
powers. But deny this, and assume that all is matter, and nothing 
but matter, and we are overwhelmed with difficulty, mystery, and 
absurdity. 

One of the most serious objections to materi lism is, that it leads 


Ch. xxxviii.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 479 


directly to atheism. Atheists have always defended their position on 
the ground of materialism; and materialists, to be consistent with them- 
selves, must become atheists. 

The atheist argues against the existence of a personal, spiritual God, 
possessed of infinite intelligence and power, who created and upholds 
all things, by assuming that matter is eternal, and that it is possessed 
of all the intelligence and power requisite for its own government 
Now, is it not clear that materialism occupies one important plank on 
the same platform? For, if a being endued with all the intelligence of 
man—with all his mental activity ; his capacity of thought and reason ; 
his ability to soa. to the heavens above, and hold converse with the 
worlds and systems of worlds which roll amid the immensity of space; 
to measure their distances and trace their orbits; and then, descending 
to earth, to dive into the profound arcana of nature, and unfold her 
secret mysteries—if a being of such astonishing powers as these is 
nothing but an organized lump of matter, as the materialist asserts, how 
naturally and consistently may he take another step, and conclude that 
there may reside somewhere amid the immensity of space aaother body 
of organized matter of finer mold and texture, and more ingenious 
structure, that may control all things! How easily may he suppose an 
organism of mere matter, thrown together by chance or somehow else, 
as much superior to Newton as he was to the mere zoophyte! And if 
once we admit the possibility that mere matter may produce such an 
intelligence, how easy the transition to all the startling conclusions of 
atheism ! 

We might greatly enlarge upon the theme before us, but we deem it 
unnecessary. We have said enough to satisfy any candid person, who 
is willing to be governed by common sense, that the human mind, or 
soul, is not a material substance, and that, therefore, it will not neces- 
sarily perish with the dissolution of the body. We do not, however, 
infer the immortality of the soul merely from its immateriality. 
Whether it be immortal or not, depends on the will of the Creator, and 
not on its properties or phenomena. 

2. We next consider the objection to the scriptural doctrine of 
man’s proper immortality, growing out of materialism, and bearing 
upon the state of man during the interim between death and the resur- 
rection. 

The immortality of man taught in Scripture, and the only view of it 
which can imply any real substantial benefit, is that which contemplates 
the conscious personal being of each individual, as continuing without 
interruption from the commencement. of his existence to all eternity. 


480 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. BS 


ialism teaches that t i dent on the organization of 


the brain for its existence. Its theory is, that man is not a compound 
being composed of two distinct parts, the material and the immaterial, 
but that he is wholly material; and that what we term the soul is noth- 
ing but organized matter, or a function of the brain; and that from 
this organization all the phenomena of mind result as a necessary 
sequence. From this postulate it follows, as a necessary corollary, that 
when the body dies, the soul sinks into an eternal sleep; or, in other 
words, ceases forever to exist. It is clear that the admission of this 
doctrine would be a relinquishment of the correct view of the soul’s 
immortality. 

Jt is true, some who hold to the materiality of the soul admit that 
there will be a resurrection of the body; and they contend that when that 
shall take place, and the new body be organized, then the soul also will 
be revived with it, as the necessary result of that organization. This 
theory, to a superficial observer, may seem to admit both the resurrec- 
tion of the body and the immortality of the soul; but, in reality, it is 
inconsistent with both the one and the other. According to this theory 
what might seem to be a resurrection of the old body and a restoratiot 
of the old soul, can be nothing but a new creation. 

The correctness of this position will appear, when we consider what 
is implied in the proper personal identity of man. This is really 
grounded, not in the body, but in the soul. We do not mean by this 
that the identity of man, both as to his soul and his body, will not be 
preserved on both sides of death and of the resurrection, including the 
interim between them-—even from the commencement of his being to 
nll eternity. But our position is, that we can have no evidence of this 
identity, nor can we conceive it to imply any thing real or substantial, 
unless the conscious existence of the soul be perpetuated during all the 
period between death and the resurrection. For if this be denied, by 
what chain, or ligament, can man this side of death be connected with 
man the other side of the resurrection ? 

It has been contended that man’s proper identity cannot be grounded 
on the consciousness of the soul, because this is often suspended, even 
in this life. To sustain this objection, the appeal has been made to the 
phenomenon of sleep; and it has been contended that during sleep the 
soul loses all consciousness of its identity. 

To this objection we reply, that there is no evidence that the soul loses 
this consciousness in sleep. A man in complete mental derangement 
may imagine himself a being that he is not; but that he does not, even 
then, connect this being with his former self, we have no means of 


Uh. xxxviii.} IMMORIALITY UF THE HUMAN SOUL. tel 


proving, or eveu of knowing. It cannot be disputed that a sane man 


does, even in hig dreams, connect himself with his former waking self; 
and on awaking from his slumbers, he is conscious that he is the same 
being that dreamed, as well as the same being he was before he slept. 

Were we to admit that the soul loses the consciousness of its identity 
in sleep, that admission could have no bearing in support of the objec- 
tion we here oppose, because it cannot be denied that this consciousness 
is revived the moment we awake. Memory, so to speak, ties the knot 
between the end of the thread of our history which we drop when we 
fall asleep, and the end we take up when we awake; so that there is no 
break in the testimony of consciousness in reference to our_personal 
identity. But there is no possibility of the soul that ceases to be, when 
the body dies, being connected by the chain of memory with another 
soul which commences its existence with the organization of the resur- 
rection body. Iam as fully conscious that I am the same person to-day 
that I was yesterday, as I possibly could be if I had lain awake all 
the while to prevent some one from stealing me away while I slept. 

But even if we were to suppose that God might endue the new soul, 
which commences with the organization of the resurrection body, with 
a remembrance of the entire history of the former soul, that memory 
could not connect the soul that had long been extinct with one newly 
born as being in fact the same. Memory may aid the soul, to some 
extent, in the exercise of the consciousness of personal identity, but it 
cannot produce that consciousness of itself. Memory may mirror to my 
vision the events of yesterday, so that I behold them again; but it is 
consciousness, not memory, that assures me that the actor of yesterday 
and the actor of to-day are the same person. If memory alone con- 
nects the person of to-day with the person of yesterday, there must. be no 
hiatus in her record. She cannot be allowed to slumber, or withdraw 
her eye for a moment from the person in question. 

To show that the evidence of personal identi 
ory, but in consciousness, we will use an illustration. Suppose a num- 
ber of coins resembling each other so closely that the eye cannot dis- 
tinguish the one from the other, how can I know from the evidence of 
memory that the one in my purse to-day is the same that occupied it 
yesterday? Is it not clear that I must have it under my surveillance 
all the time? My assurance of the identity of the coin will be in pro- 
pertion to my evidence of the impossibility of its having been exchanged. 
If there be one hour in which it lay upon my table while I was asleep, 
I cannot know, from memory, that it may not have been exchanged. 
If assured that the coin has uot been exchanged, because my door has 


31 


Af 


4&? ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5. 


beow so strongly barred that it is impossible that the room could have 
been entered, then my evidence of the identity of the coin rests on that 
fact, and not on memory. 

To prove personal identity from memory, requires reflection and 
comparison ; but the evidence from consciousness is instant and spun- 
taneous. J know when I awake in the morning that I am the same 
person that I was the day before, not by remembering my former 
appearance and comparing it with my present appearance, but the con- 
viction springs from consciousness sudden as the flash of thought. The 
man of seventy is conscious that he is the same being now that he was 
when a child. He derives this assurance, not by remembering his child- 
hood appearance and comparing it with his present appearance, but this 
conviction rises as spontaneously as the emotion of joy from the recep- 
tion of good news. 

But admitting that memory may assist consciousness in preparing her 
testimony to personal identity, our argument against the sleep of the 
aoul with the body in death can lose none of its force by that admission. 
Memory, as well as consciousness, has its seat in the soul. Hence, if the 
soul ceases to exist at the death of the body, both memory and con- 
sciousness must then perish. If memory and consciousness are no 
more, all evidence of personal identity is destroyed. And if the evi- 
dence of personal identity be destroyed, we can attach no sensible 
import tu the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, or the future 
state of the soul. 

There is no fact in all the range of experimental knowledge, and of 
physiological science, of which we are more perfectly assured than this 
—that the consciousness of personal identity is preserved by every 
intelligent being, from the earliest to the latest period of his rational 
existence upon earth. And that this consciousness of personal identity 
is aceording to the truth and reality of things, no rational mind can 
doubt. But on the supposition that the soul ceases to exist from the 
dissolution of the body till the resurrection at the last day, what proof 
ean there be establishing the position that a consciousness of persona] 
identity can connect this life with the next? 

if it be said that when the resurrection body is produced, and its 
fine-wrought materials organized, a new soul of a far more elevated 
character than the present one shall result from that organization, and 
that God can inspire that new soul with a consciousness that it is iden- 
tical with the former soul whose existence ceased at the death of the 
body—if this position be taken, then the theory will be encumbered by 
insurmountak le difficulties. 


Ch. xxxviii.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SvUL. 483 


First, if the materials and organization of the new body ve vastly 
superior in polish and refinement to those of the old body, how is it 
possible that what results from the two organizations can be the same? 
It is a principle in philosophy, that like causes produce like effects, and 
that different causes produce different effects. But here is a case in 
which different causes are supposed to produce the same effect. 

Secondly, it is here supposed that God may inspire the new soul with 
the consciousness that it is identical with the former soul, when such 
a persuasion would, in point of fact, be untrue. There are some 
things too hard for Omnipotence. God cannot lie, nor do any thing 
wrong; neither can he do what implies a contradiction or an absurdity. 
Hence it is quite too much to require us to believe that God would, or 
could, inspire the new soul with a consciousness of the identity of what 
is not identical ; or, in other words, that God should inspire a falsehood. 
If the mind is only the brain, or a function of the brain, at the death 
of the body it ceases to exist, and is nothing. Now, can that which is 
nothing be identical with that which is something? Can the soul 
which unce existed, but which for centuries had ceased to exist, be iden- 
tical with that which has just been produced, and which never did exist 
before? 

In the case of bodily sleep, when we wake from our slumber, we are 
conscious of the same personal identity which we had before we slept. 
But if the soul sleeps in non-existence from death till the resurrection, 
and is then reproduced as the result of a new organization, how is it 
possible it can have a consciousness of identity with the former soul? 
Can it be conscious of what is contrary to fact? Can that which has 
just come forth from nonentity have any memory connecting it with 
the past, and identifying it with something which had once existed, but 
which for centuries had ceased to exist? or can it have a memory of 
things that transpired centuries before its existence? 

Allowing personal identity to consist in the consciousness of the soul, 
that it is the same person—the same conscious, self-active, and respon- 
sible agent it was in childhood—and allowing the soul still to con- 
tinue to exist, preserving this same consciousness of personal identity 
and responsibility—allowing this, we can then recognize the import and 
consistency of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, and of the 
future conscious existence of the soul. 

By the identity of the body, we do not mean that the particles of 
matter from childhood to old age are precisely the same. These may 
all have been changed, including even the substance of the brain, some 
five or six umes. Though decay and renewal, dilapidation and repairs, 


484 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B. 5 


may have still been going on, yet we are not conscious of having 
changed our body for that of another person. On the contrary, we are 
conscious all the while that each day we possess the same body we had 
the day before. On the supposition that the soul still lives on through 
life, and from death till the resurrection, preserving a consciousness of 
its personal identity as the same responsible being—while this is the 


case, the identity of the body js still preserved. 
ope noment we admit that during the interim from death to the 


resurrection there is no conscious being living on to connect the con- 
scious being before death with the conscious being after the resurrection, 
there can, in the nature of things, be no resurrection. For if we admit 
that God should raise up the same material that once com posed a body, 
how can a soul that has just sprung into being, on the organization of 
that aew body, be conscious of that having once been its body, when it 
had not? And without this consciousness of receiving the identical 
budy it had before inhabited, how can it realize a resurrection? If 
unconscious of ever having had a body, how can it be conscious of 
taking up the body it once laid down? And without this, how can it 
realize a resurrection ? 


QUESTIONS ON ate XXXVIII. 


QuersTion 1. Upon what is the principal w is it proved that the materia] 


objection to the doctrine of the substance of the brain is not pow- 

soul’s immortality founded? sessed of memory? 
2. What Jewish sect were materialists? | 9,,To what form of skepticism does 
3. When did this heresy originate in the materialism lead ? 

Christian Church ? 0.*What does materialism teach as to 
4. What is the theory of materialism? the state of the soul when. the body 
5. How do we gain a knowledge of the Me 

existence of the soul? Tl. Upon what is man’s proper personal 
6. How are matter and spirit proved to identity grounded ? 

be essentially different by their re- | 14 Why is the conscious existence of the 

spective properties? soul, during the interim between 

~How is it prove that matter is not death and the resurrection, neces 


intelligent? sary to man’s immortality? 


Ch xrzix., IMMORTALITY OF THR TIUMAN SOUL. 435 


CHAPTER XXXIX. 


IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL—THE DOCTRINE ESTABLISHEB 


Tar doctrine of immortality is emphatically a doctrine of revelation, 
To whatever extent the mere hope of a future state may be enkindled 
by the paler light of nature, yet it is now generally admitted by the 
best-informed Christian philosophers, that the doctrine of immortality J 
can only be established by a direct_revelati : ; Nature 
may impart the hope—revelation alone can give the assurance. And 
while we are far from agreeing with those who teach that the doctrine 


of immortality is not embraced_in the Old Testament and constituted oR 
Co 


no part of the Jewish religion, yet we freely admit that it remained for 


the clearer revelations of the gospel to bring this doctrine fully to tat 
light. Christ, by his luminous teachings, and especially by his tri- a 
umphant resurrection, “hath abolished death, and brought life and “4c 


immortality to light.” 

But the great question now before us is this: Is that immaterial, 
spiritual essence, which, as shown in the preceding chapter, dwells 
within us, destined to die with the body, and sleep with it in the tomb? 
Or, will it triumph over the ravages of death, and live on forever? 


a Ln ac eer eaarree ALTO upon the 
authority of a direct revelation from Heaven, has exultantly asserted 
the truth of the doctrine. But let us look at the evidence by which it 
is sustained. 

I. WE NOTICE SOME PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENTS DERIVED FROM 
NATURE AND REASON. 

1. The a:ul’s immortality may be argued from the pernicious tendency 
of the rejection of this doctrine. 

The system of truth is symmetrical and cohering. All its elemente 
hang together like links in a chain, as consistent parts of an harmonious 
whole. We assume it as an unquestionable axiom, that one truth car 
neither be inconsistent with another in its nature, nor productive of 


Me 


486 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B 5. 


evil in its tendency. If it can be shown that a belief in immortality 
and the retributions of an hereafter is, necessarily, a safeguard to virtue 
and morality, and of real beneficial tendency, this fact will be a pre- 
sumptive argument in favor of the doctrine, of great weight with ali 
sober-minded thinkers, That the adoption of skepticism in reference 


to eis of demoralizing tendency, is a position so clearly 
Pp e unbiased mind, that we consider it scarcely a debatable 
_point. — 


=é is a principle extensively recognized by the jurisprudence and civil 
tribunals of enlightened Christendom, that the testimony of a disbe- 
liever in future rewards and punishments is scarcely to be admitted in 
a court of justice. And why is this the case? It results from the 
general conviction that he whose actions here are not, in some degree at 
least, molded, influenced, or restrained, by a belief in an hereafter, is not 
to be trusted, even upon oath. What gives to the oath of the citizen 
before the civil magistrate its authority and force? It is that reference 
to the holy volume, and the solemn appeal to God, the final judge of 
all, which the oath implies. The solemnity of the oath, giving to every 
citizen confidence in judges, legislators, jurors, and all the officers of 
government, from the chief executive down to the impanneled jury- 
man, is based upon the doctrine of man’s immortality—a belief in the 
retributions of an hereafter. Let but the principles of skepticism which 
antagonize this doctrine gain that firm footing in public sentiment which 
the belief in immortality now holds, and how direful the consequences 
that would ensue! Let it be the first lesson of the nursery, and the 
revered motto of every school and seminary of learning throughout 
the land ; let it be proclaimed from every tribunal, every platform, and 
every pulpit, that there is no hereafter! and what mind can conceive, or 
what heart could endure, the speedy result? All confidence between 
man and his fellow would be destroyed; harmony and peace would 
give place to discord and strife; the flood-gates of vice and immorality 
would be lifted, and a deluge of evil would overflow the land! The 
strongest bulwarks of virtue, morality, and religion, would be demol- 
ished, and crime and outrage, bloodshed and violence, would everywhere 
prevail ! 

Look at what was the condition of France when that frenzied nation 
denounced the truths of revelation—proclaimed it as their national 
creed that “death is an eternal sleep,” and that “there is no God but 
reason!” and in blasphemous derision, had the holy book of God 
dragged through the streets of Paris at the tail of an ass! It was, 
indeed, the reign of terror! Friend could not meet friend in the street 


Ch, xxxix.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 487 


without fearing his dagger! The lanes and avenues of the city, and 
the highways and by- eat of the country, were dyed with the blood of 
the een citizens, till the very heart of humanity shuddered and 
grew sick at the spectacle, ready to rush into the arms of despotism as 
an asylum from the furies of infidel anarchy! And such would soon 
be the disorder and ruin everywhere, if the doctrine of the soul’s immor- 
tality were discarded. Better blot the sun from the heavens above us, 
than this doctrine from the hearts of the people! 

2. Our neat argument is founded on the fact that the doctrine of wmmor- 
tality has been recognized, with greater or less clearness, by the wisest and 
best of mankind in all ages. 

An examination of accredited history shows that the united voice of 
ancient nations is in favor of this doctrine. It was acknowledged by 
the Egyptians, the Phenicians, the Persians, the Scythians, the Assyr- 
ians, the Celts, and the Druids, as well as the Greeks and the Romans. 

“ Never,” says Dr. Blair, “ has any nation been discovered on the face 
of the earth so rude and barbarous that, in the midst of their wildest 
superstitions, there was not cherished among them some oon of 

a state after death in which the virtuous were to enjoy perme 


Plato says: “ When, therefore, d 


tal in him perishes, as it is seen to do; but what is immortal Srre s 
itself from death, safe and_uncorrupted.” 


Cicero says: “If Lam wrong in believing th 
I please myself in my mistake; nor while Ti 
this opinion with which I 


from me, But if at death I am to be annihil mien 
suppose, I am not afraid testthose-wise men, when-extinct too, should 


laugh at my error.” 
We may add, there is not a nation, ortribe,of whom history fur. 


ees Though the views of most of them were obscure and 

unsatisfactory, embracing much that was ridiculous and absurd, yet 
their hopes penetrated the gloomy future, giving evidence of an internal 
consciousness of the insufficiency of this world to satisfy the aspirations 
of their souls. 

But how shall we account for this universal persuasion of mankind? 
“Tf it was a local tradition, we might refer it to some local cause. If 
it had been limited to some one age, we might attribute it to some pecu- 
liar development or bias of the mind of that age resulting from a tem- 


porary cause, But what shall we say when we find it bounded by no 
elime, and limited to no age, bui one of the deepest and most universal 


— 


488 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pie 8: 


sentinients of humanity? There can be but one answer. The senti- 
ment is inspired with the very consciousness of life, and therefore 
appeals to the great Author of life as its source. It must, then, be true. 
A belief thus originated, so universal, cannot be without a substantial 
basis in truth. In a word, it is proof sublime of immortality. It is 
demonstration that death works only the change, not the destruction, 
of the soul.” (Dr. D. W. Clark’s “ Man all Immortal.”) 


3. Our neat argument 1s founded—on—the-innate-desiveof the soul for 
. . Se zh 
immortality. 

The thirst for a continued pursuit of knowledge appears almost uni- 
versal. But in this intellectual chase, who has reached the desired goal? 


“But whence this pleasing hope, this fond desire, 
This longing after immortality ? 
Or whence this secret dread and inward horror 
Of falling into naught? Why shrinks the soul 
Back on herself, and startles at destruction? 
‘Tis the divinity that stirs within us; 
‘Tis Heaven itself that points out an hereafter, 
And intimates eternity to man.” 


Unless we admit that this desire has been impressed upon the consti- 
tution of our nature by the hand of our Maker, how can we account 
for its general prevalence? And can we suppose a God of infinite wis- 
dom and goodness has imparted these pleasing hopes merely to be ended 
in disappointment? Will God mock his creatures, and ]i star 


of hope only to go out in endless night? No! 


ene 
‘The soul, secure in her existence, smiles 
At the drawn dagger, and defies its point: 
The stars shall fade away, the sun himself 
Grow dim with age, and nature sink in years; 
But thou shalt flourish in immortal youth, 
Unhurt amidst the war of elements, 
The wreck of matter, and the crash of worlds.” 


4. Our neat argument for the immortality of the soul is founded upon 
wu) Ul distributi rds and punishments in this life. 

A glance at the history of the world, and a little attention to the 
state of things around us, will evince that rewards and punishments are 
not meted out in the present state in exact accordance with the actions 
vf individuals. How frequently have the wicked and abominable been 
permitted to pass unpunished! The tyrant, while crushing thousands 
uf the innocent and the unoffending beneath his iron heel of power, has 


Ch. xxx1x.] IMMORTALILY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 489 


feasted upon the richest luxuries of life, and drank to satiety at. every 
fount of worldly pleasure. The proud and the licentious, the avari- 
cious and the cruel, have too frequently occupied the high places of the 
earth, and escaped in this life the punishment due to their crimes. 

On the other hand, those celebrated for virtue and piety have often 
heen the most afflicted of our race. Abraham, the father of the faith- 
ful, was most sorely tried. Moses, the meek servant of God, met the 
scoffs and reproaches of his ungodly countrymen, and “endured as 
seeing him who is invisible.” Job and Daniel, Isaiah and Jeremiah, 
the apostles and martyrs—in a word, the good of every age, have 
generally been called in this life to pass through the furnace of afflic- 
tion. For their “patience of hope, and labor of love,” an ungrateful 
world has requited them with bonds, imprisonment, tortures, and death. 
But justice will not forever sleep. The wicked will not always escape, 
nor the righteous go forever unrewarded. A future state is necessar y 
to rectify these disorders, and to exhibit to an intelligent universe that 
he who reigns over all is a God of justice. 

5. Our next argument for the soul’s immortality is founded upon its 
vast powers. 

The utmost capacity of the human intellect has never yet been exhib- 
ited. The shortness of human life, together with the innumerable hin- 
drances with which the most highly favored must necessarily contend, 
in their intellectual pursuits, has ever precluded the possibility of test- 
ing, by example, what the human intellect, under more favorable 
circumstances, might accomplish. Yet the achievements of mind, in 
the various departments of knowledge, have been truly astonishing. 

The mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, have passed ier 
philosophic review. The penetrating genius of a Locke has scanned 
the powers of the human intellect, and described the laws of mind in so 
clear and forcible a manner as to win an immortality of fame. The 
capacious intellect of a Bacon has surveyed the entire circle of human 
science, and marked the appropriate line of intellectual pursuit for 
succeeding generations. Nor has the research been restricted to the 
globe we inhabit. The towering mind of a Newton has soared from 
world t» world, estimated the magnitudes and distances of those im- 
mense orbs, and expatiated on the laws binding them together and guid- 
ing them in their harmonious revolutions. 

Contemplating the soul as the center and source of all mental 
achievement and all moral emotion, how transcendently great must be 
its powers! It stands confessed as the greater, the nobler, part of our 
aature. It is as much superior to the body as heaven is higher thap 


490 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.S 


earth. A material of finer texture than the body, it is wrought up to 
a higher state of perfection. All that is profound in the researches of 
intellect—all that is attractive or picturesque in the creations of fancy 
—all that is grand or sublime in the visions of imagination—all that is 
heroic in patriotism, angelic in virtue, or godlike in devotion, is but the 
goings forth of the inner nature—the outbreathings of the soul. 

The body has to do with things of earth. As the instrument of the 
soul, it can reach forth its hand and grasp the treasures of the world, it 
can open its eye and ear upon all the beauty and melody that surround 
it; but the soul can take a nobler flight, and hold converse with spirit- 
ual things; she can spread her wings abroad, and soar aloft to the 
heights of heaven; she can mingle with seraphim and cherubim in gaz 
ing with wonder and admiration upon the outshining power, and wis- 
dom, and goodness, and glory, of the Supreme Ruler of the universe. 
The utmost capacity of the human soul has never yet been fully tested 
onearth. We have witnessed the exploits of talent and genius in their 
various departments. We have seen something of what the powers 
of the soul have accomplished; but we know not the extent to which 
those powers might be conducted. Philosophy, in all her departments, 
has spread open her wide fields for the range of the human soul. The 
deep mysteries of nature have been explored, and her most subtle agen- 
cies tamed by the genius of man, and rendered obsequious to his bid- 
ding, and tributary to his comfort. The sublime doctrines of revela- 
tion have been surveyed, and the rich promises of an endless life have 
been grasped by the human soul, as the pledge of an undying hope 
and a blissful immortality. 

Can it be that powers so noble, so lofty and capacious, are destined 
just to begin to unfold themselves on earth, and then, like a bubble 
bursting on the bosom of the sea, disappear forever? Has infinite 
Wisdcm and Power created an intelligence so highly endowed, merely 
to flutter a brief moment on the surface of the earth, and then to sink 
back into nonentity? Philosophy, reason, every thing within and 
around us, revolts at the idea! 

Can we suppose that all that has ever been exhibited great and ma- 
jestic in the human soul, has passed into eternal unconsciousness? 
Look at the electric genius and Attic splendor of Homer; the strug- 
gling hopes of Plato; the incorruptible integrity of Aristides. Look at 
the heroic patriotism of Moses; the unyielding patience of Job; the 
angelic devotion of David; the glowing pathos of the prophets, and 
the dauntless zeal of the apostles. Can it be that those choice and noble 
spirits, in whom these heavenly qualities once shone with such luster, 


Cu. xxxix.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 49) 


like the flitting shadow, have vanished from existence forever? Rea: 
son and every ennobling hope within us, and every attribute of God 
above us, forbid the hypothesis that this lofty nature is born to-day to 
perish forever to-morrow! 


‘Who reads his bosom reads immortal life; 
Or nature there, imposing on her sons. 
Has written fables—man was made a lie!” 


II. WE Now APPEAL TO THE TEACHINGS OF SCRIPTURE, ON THE 
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 

Having called attention to some of the principal arguments in favor 
of a future state, derived from nature and reason alone, we now proceed 
briefly to examine the Scripture evidence on the subject. This is one 
of those leading and important doctrines which find their support on 
almost every page of the Bible. Indeed, if we discard the doctrine of 
an hereafter, no part of the Scriptures can be satisfactorily construed : 
the entire volume, as a whole, will be an unintelligible enigma. To 
such as believe in the truth of divine revelation, a few of the many 
quotations that might be presented, of a direct and pointed character, 
will be quite as satisfactory as a great number of texts could be; there 
fore we shall be brief in our presentation of proof. 

1. We first bring our testimony from the Old Testament. 

We here premise that all those scriptures which speak of the resur- 
rection of the body, establish also the immortality of the soul. These 
two doctrines hang together, imparting to each other mutual support 
and confirmation. “The body without the spirit is dead;” and to 
suppose a resurrection of the material part of our nature, without con- 
necting with it the immaterial conscious self by which it is now inhab- 
ited, would overthrow every thing connected with the resurrection, of 
which we can conceive as desirable, or of any substantial benefit. If 
my soul—my conscious self—is to pass into nonentity when my body 
dies, of what consequence can the material particles laid in the grave 
then be to me? They could be no more to me, either then or now, than 
the dust beneath my feet. And according to that hypothesis, the idea 
of deriving any encouraging hope from such a resurrection is perfectly 
preposterous. But let us inquire, What were the views and hopes of 
the Old Testament worthies on this subject ? 

Hear the solemn strain of triumph poured from the lips of the 
afflicted saint of Uz: “O that my words were now written! (for they 
are too weighty to be allowed to perish with the voice as it dies away 
upon the air;) O that they were printed in a book! (that they might 


492 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 5 


be circulated taroughout all lands and among all peoples.) That they 
were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! (that they 
might remain an enduring monument to testify to the latest generations 
this solemn confession of my faith and hope.) For I know that my 
Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the 
earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my 
flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall 
behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.” 
Job. xix. 23-27. 

On this subject, hear also the exultant language of the sweet singer 
of Israel: “My strength and my heart faileth ; (that is, my body tend- 
eth to the tomb ;) but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion 
forever.” Ps. Ixxiii. 26. That is, when my body dies, God will still be 
the comfort and the “ portion” of my soul. Again: “As for me, I will 
behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake with 
thy likeness.” Ps. xvii. 15. “My flesh also shall rest in hope; for thou 
wilt not leave my soul in hell, (the grave,) neither wilt thou suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in 
thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures 
forevermore.” Ps. xvi. 9-11. 

Once more: “ Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow 
of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy 
staff they comfort me.” “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me 
all the days of my life; and (after the dissolution of my body) I will 
dwell ia the house of the Lord forever.” Ps. xxxiii.4, 6. “Thou shalt 
guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.” Ps. 
Ixxiii. 24. 

‘Tn reference to the passages already quoted, we undertake to say that 
no sane, unbiased mind, willing to be governed by common sense, can 
understand them to teach otherwise than that these Old Testament saints 
comforted their hearts amid the afflictions and tribulations of this life, 
with the hope of happiness in the next. Hence, if these hopes were 
not all delusive, which the fact of their inspiration will not admit, then 
it inevitably follows that the soul of the Christian does not go out like 
an extinguished taper at death, but will live on in a state of endless 
fruition 

We next adduce the testimony of the Prophet Daniel: “They that 
be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that 
turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever.” Dan. xii. 3. 
Now, as the body cannot live here “forever and ever,” this must refer 
vo the future state. Many other proofs of the point in question migbt 


Ch. xxxir.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 493 


be brought from the Old Testament; but if those offered are not satis- 
factory, more would be useless. 

2. We now turn to the New Testament. 

(1) We present testimony from the words of our Lord. 

“ Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; 
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” 
Matt. x. 28. 

It is plain, from this text, that though men have power to kill the 
body, they cannot kill the soul. From this it follows that the soul is 
neither a function of the brain, nor does it die with the body; for if so, 
men, in killing the body, would necessarily kill the soul also, which the 
text denies them the power to do. 

“ But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that 
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, Iam the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of 
the dead, but of the living.” Matt. xxii. 31, 32. 

It is undeniable, from this text, that the soul still lives after the body 
dies. The bodies of these patriarchs had been buried for centuries, and 
yet our Saviour teaches that their souls were still living, and that God 
was still their God. 

The account given by our Saviour of the “rich man” and Lazarus, 
(Luke xvi. 22, 23,) whether we view it as a parable or a history, demon- 
strates the existence of the soul, in a state of conscious happiness or 
misery, after the death of the body. 

The words of Christ to the thief on the cross, “To-day shalt thou be 
with me in paradise,” (Luke xxiii. 48,) are proof to the same effect. It 
was not the dead body, but the surviving soul, that went immediately 
to paradise. . 

Our Saviour’s discourse, in the sixth chapter of John, is most palpa- 
ble proof of the immortality of the soul. Among other expressions, 
note the following: “I am the living bread which came down from 
heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.” Many 
more proofs equally conclusive might be adduced from our Lord’s dis- 
courses, but it is needless: we have given enough to satisfy such as are 
willing to be governed by his sayings. Yet we must be allowed to add 
one more: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not 
so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I 
go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto 
myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John xiv. 2, 3. 

(2) Evidence on the subject given by the apostles. 

“For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dis 


494 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1. 6.5 


solved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eter- 
nal in the heavens.” “Therefore we are always confident, knowing 
that while we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord.” 
“We are confident, I say, willing rather to be absent from the body 
and to be present with the Lord.” 2 Cor. v. 1, 6, 8. 

We cannot conceive how language could be framed to prove more 
explicitly the point in question, than do these words of St. Paul. After 
the earthly tabernacle of the body shall be dissolved, he speaks confi- 
dently of inhabiting another house “eternal in the heavens.” And his 
language admits of no intermediate space of unconsciousness, or non- 
entity, between the laying down of the body and the taking possession 
of the heavenly house. So soon as he is “absent from the body,” he is 
confident of being “ present with the Lord.” 

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” “For Iam ina 
strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which 
is far better: nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” 
Phil. i. 21, 23, 24. 

Now, it is most unquestionable that the apostle expected to “be with 
Christ,” so soon as death should close his labors with the Church. 
Hence his language demonstrates that the soul neither dies nor sleeps 
with the body, in the grave or anywhere else, but is immediately “ with 
Christ, which is far better.” This implies a state of conscious happi 
ness. 

Once more: St. Paul says, “I am now ready to be offered, and the 
time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have 
finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up 
for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord the righteous judge 
shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them 
also that love his appearing.” 2 Tim. iv. 6-8. 

St. Peter speaks in tones of exultant joy of his hope of immortal 
bliss: “ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which 
according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively 
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inherit- 
ance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in 
heaven for you; who are kept by the power of God through faith unto 
salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.” 1 Pet. i. 3-5, 

Upon the hypothesis that the soul ceases to exist when the body dies, 
or that an immortality of felicity awaits not the righteous after death, 
how impossible must it be for any sensible construction to be placed 
upon the scriptures we have presented, and many others that might be 
produced! We pursue the theme no farther. If the skeptic can gain 


Oh. xxxix.] IMMORTALITY OF THE HUMAN SOUL. 495 


delight to his own heart by persuading himself that unconcious nonen- 
tity is his own future heritage, let him—if he wil/—take his dark and 
gloomy course alone, nor vainly strive to destroy the foundation of the 
righteous. 


Ka 


“O listen, man! 
A voice within us speaks that startling word: 
‘Man, thou shalt never die!’ Celestial voices 
Hymn it unto our souls: according harps, 
By angel fingers touched, when the mild stars 
Of morning sang together, sound forth still 
The song of our great immortality.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XXXIX. 


vestTion 1. To what extent is immor-| 8. How, the souls of vast powers? 


tality a doctrine of revelation? 9. In what way can the immortality of 
2. Is it taught in the Old Testa- the soul be argued from the resur- 
ment? rection of the body? 
3. How has it been viewed by pagans? |10. How may the soul’s immortality 
4. How is it argued from the tendency be proved from the Old Testa. 
of its rejection? ment? 
i 5. How, from the belief of all nations? | 11. How may it be proved from the words 
6. How, from the soul’s innate desire? of Christ ? 


XG. 


How, from the inequality of rewards | 12. How, from the teachings of thi 
and punishments? apostles ? 


49u ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.i. BT 


CHAPTER XL. 


\ 
\ 
apeceen | THE RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY. 
fe / 


dependin wires revelation for its support. 


|- before we exdmine the Scripture account of the subject, 
we will briefly notice some philosophical objections frequently urged 
against it. 

1. The captious infidel and the ingenious materialist have represented 
it as “a thing incredible that God should raise the dead.” They have 
founded their objection upon the laws of matter, which, according to their 
showing, forbid the supposition that a decayed human body should again 
be raised to life. 

In reply to this objection we ask, What are the laws of matter 
which are supposed to present this insuperable obstacle? A Jaw, 
considered in itself, is not an active agent, possessed of self-moving 
power. It can only be properly understood to imply the mode in which 
the actions of a self-moving agent are conducted. The laws of matter 
can only imply the mode in which the divine power, which originally 
created the material universe, proceeds in its government and control. 
That these laws, thus considered, are profoundly mysterious, presenting 
at every step what is incomprehensible to the human intellect, none will 
deny. But this very fact should rather admonish us of the propriety 
of extreme cautiousness in asserting what is or is not forbidden by the 
laws in question. Before we can be prepared for assertions of so bold 
and sweeping a character, we should understand the nature of these 
mysterious principles more thoroughly than the most skillful philoso- 
pher dare pretend. Who can say that he comprehends the laws of 
matter? The wisest philosopher stumbles at the very threshold, and 
finds in the smallest spire of grass, or the most insignificant insect, 
mysteries too profound for his comprehension. How, then, can he be 
prepared for assertions so general and unqualified, that they can only 
be safely based upon a thorough knowledge of the subject ? 

But suppose, for the sake of argument, we admit that the resurrec- 
tion of the human body is contrary to the laws of matter, as they now 


Ck. xij RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY. 497 


exist, might we not ask, who is the Author of those laws? And may 
not the same divine Being who originally framed and constantly regu- 
lates them, change or modify them at pleasure? Can it be sound phi- 
losophy to say, if the resurrection is a work attributed to God alone, 
that a law of his own framing, depending entirel y upon his will for its 
existence, shall impede the exercise of his own wonder-working power, 
in the accomplishment of his purpose? 

We are, however, far from admitting that this dsctrine conflicts with 
the laws of matter. It is very true that, according to our experience 
and observation, the resurrection of the human body from the grave 
does not result from the regular operation of those laws. When dead 
human bodies are interred, we have not observed that new bodies arise 
from their ruins; but how can we certainly know that this necessarily 
results from an insuperable obstacle interposed by the Jaws of matter? 
From any thing that we can see, it may be accounted for by referring 
it entirely to the will of God. Had the great Creator seen fit so to 
direct, the resurrection of the human body from the grave might have 
been as common an occurrence as that of death itself ; and were such 
the fact, it would present no more difficulty to our minds than any other 
mysterious process of nature; and skeptical philosophy, so far from 
pronouncing it a deviation from the laws of matter, would view it as a 
necessary result of those laws. 

In confirmation of the position here assumed, we appeal to the process 
of vegetation, and ask the candid mind to decide whether it does not 
present mysteries as great as are involved in the doctrine of the resur- 
rection? From the decayed seed we see springing forth the plant, bear- 
ing even sixty or a hundred-fold of similar seeds. If it be pronounced 
contrary to the laws of matter that one new body should come forth 
from one decayed body, would not the fair analogical inference be, that 
it is contrary to the laws of matter that one new seed should come forth 
from one decayed seed? But when we see many new seeds proceeding 
from a single decayed one, is not the seeming difficulty increased in 
proportion to the number of seeds? It is true that we have become so 
familiar with the process of vegetation that we are but slight] y impressed 
with the difficulty which it involves. I think, however, we may safely 
affirm, that if the resurrection of the human body were as common as the 
process of vegetation, and the latter as unprecedented as the former, the 
same philosophy which pronounces the resurrection of the human body 
inconsistent with the laws of matter, would then, with equal, if not 
greater, show of reason, make a similar declaration in reference to the 
process of vegetation. Hence the argument against the resurrection, as 


32 


498 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. i. B.5 


it bears witn equal force against an every-day process of nature, is seen 
to be fallacious. 

2. The resurrection of the body has been farther opposed, from the 
assumed changes which take place in its substance during life. 

To this we reply, that, admitting the supposition of these changes to 
be correct, they present no difficulty in the way of the resurrection ; for 
the proper persenal sameness of the body, through the successive stages 
of human life, is still preserved. The man is the same, so far as per- 
sonal identity is concerned, in infancy and at death. If personal iden- 
tity be not preserved amid all these supposed changes, the common forms 
of speech, our-own consciousness, and the civil jurisprudence of all 
countries, are calculated to mislead ; for they all contemplate each indi- 
vidual as continuing the same person through every period of life. But 
were we to admit that these changes destroy the personal identity of the 
body, the doctrine of the resurrection could not be affected thereby; for 
it is predicated of the same body which is laid in the grave. 

3. Once more: the resurrection of the body has been objected to, 
because of the difficulty implied in the fact that its decayed substance 
may enter into the composition of vegetable matter, which, being re- 
ceived as food, may pass into the substance of other bodies; and thus 
present a commingling of the substance of bodies. We reply to 
this by saying, that if, as we have already seen, the change and com- 
mingling of the substance of bodies cannot destroy their sameness dur- 
ing life, why cannot the same divine power still be exercised over the 
scattered fragments after death, so that every thing essential to their 
identity shall still be preserved? In a word, we may say that the entire 
argument against the resurrection, based upon philosophical difficulties, 
is sufficiently answered by an appeal to the infinite power of God, to the 
exercise of which the resurrection is attributed. 

II. We proceed, next, to the consideration of the Scripture proof of 
the resurrection. 

1. It has been thought by some that the resurrection of the body is 
a doctrine peculiar to the New Testament; but this is certainly not cor- 
rect. It is true that we there find the doctrine more clearly and fully 
presented, and witness its practical exemplification in the resurrection 
of Christ; but whoever will carefully examine the Old Testament on 
the subject, may easily perceive that, although the “Sadducees denied 
that there is a resurrection of the dead,” yet the ancient prophets and 
saints were animated by the glorious hope it inspires. 

That, amid his deep affliction, holy Job was comforted by this pleas- 
ing doctrine, we learn from the following exclamation: “ For I know 


Ch. x1.) RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY. 499 


that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon 
the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in 
my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes 
shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within 
me.” 

hh: Isaiah xxvi. 19, that evangelical prophet speaks in the following 
animated strain: “Thy dead men shall live, together witk my dead 
body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust; for thy 
dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.” 

In Daniel xii. 2, we read: “And many of them that sleep in the dust 
of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame 
and everlasting contempt.” “I will ransom them from the power of 
the grave; I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy 
plagues! O grave, I will be thy destruction!” Hosea xiii. 14. 

These passages from the Old Testament are sufficient to show that 
the saints of God, under the former comparatively dark dispensa- 
tion, guided by inspiration, looked beyond this vale of tears to the 
unfolding glories of the resurrection morn. 

2. We proceed, in the next place, to that more complete exhibition of 
the doctrine contained in the New Testament. 

In Matt. xxii. 23, 32, we are presented with an account of the “Sad- 
ducees, who say that there is no resurrection,” coming to Jesus, and 
questioning him on the subject. In his answer are the following words: 
“ But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that 
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, Iam the God of Abraham, 
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of 
the dead, but of the living.” These words are quoted from Exodus iii. 
6, 16, and were spoken three hundred years after the death of Abraham; 
and, as our Lord declares, they were spoken “touching the resurrection 
of the dead.” In John v, 28, 29, we read: “Marvel not at this; for 
the hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear 
his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the 
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection 
of damnation.” 

In Phil. iii. 20, 21, we read these words: “For our conversation is in 
heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus 
Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like 
unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able 
even to subdue all things unto himself.” In 1 Thess. iv. 14-18, we 
read: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them 
also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say 


500 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5 


unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive, and remain 
unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep. 
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the 
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in 
Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain, shall be 
caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the 
air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one 
another with these words.” In Rev. xx. 12, 13, we read: “And T 
saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books 
were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of 
life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written 
in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the 
dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which 
were in them; and they were judged every man according to their 
works,” 

In 1 Cor. xv. 12, we have the doctrine of the resurrection argued 
and illustrated at length, and the resurrection of Christ appealed to by 
the apostle, in confirmation of the same. As this is the most direct 
discussion of the subject contained in the Scriptures, we present it entire, 
from the twelfth verse to the end of the chapter, as follows: 

“ Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say 
some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there 
be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen; and if Christ 
be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain, 
Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified 
of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that 
the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised ; 
and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins, 
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in 
this life only, we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miser- 
able. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits 
of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also 
the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ 
shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the 
first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then com. 
eth the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom of God, even 
the Father; when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and 
power. For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all 
things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, 
it is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him 


Ch. xi.) RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY. 50] 


And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Scn alsa 
himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may 
be all in all. Else what shall they do, which are baptized for the dead, 
if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 
Aud why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing 
which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner 
of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, 
if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die. Be 
not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to 
righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God 
I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead 
raised up? and with what body do they esme? Thou fool, that which 
thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sow- 
est, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain; it may chance 
of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it hath 
pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same 
flesh ; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, 
another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, 
and bodies terrestrial; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory 
of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another 
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth 
from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It 
is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dis- 
honor, it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power: 
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a nat- 
ural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, the first 
man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quicken- 
ing spirit. Howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which 
is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of 
the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the 
earthy, such are they also that are earthy ; and as is the heavenly, such 
are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of 
the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I 
say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; 
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mys- 
tery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, 
in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, 
nnd the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put 
on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorrup- 
tion, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought 


502 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5. 


to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O 
death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting 
of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to 
God, which giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always 
abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your 
labor is not in vain in the Lord.” 

III. We now inquire, What will be the character of the resurrection 
body? 

1. It will be the identical body laid in the grave—that is, it will be 
composed of the same matter, though greatly changed in properties 
and circumstances fr,m what it had been in life. 

As human nature, in its essential elements, is the same in all ages, it 
is not surprising that the doctrine of the resurrection should be con- 
fronted with cavils now, as in the days of St. Paul. Men now, as then, 
by way of objection, exclaim: “ How are the dead raised up? and with 
what body do they come?” In commenting on this subject, the aposile 
exclaims: ‘“ Behold, I show you a mystery.” Hence we should not 
expect to be able fully to comprehend or explain it. But our faith in 
the doctrine should not stagger at the mystery it involves, since the 
accomplishment of the work has been referred by the apostle to the 
omnipotence of God—it is effected “according to the working whereby 
he is able to subdue all things unto himself.” 

Some who profess faith in Christ, and in the truth of his gospel, have 
allowed themselves to be so seduced by skeptical notions, that they have 
explained the resurrection of the body until they have completely 
expluined it away, ending by flatly denying it in deed and in truth, if 
not in words. By the resurrection of the body, they would wish us 
simply to understand, that when the soul of the saint leaves the body at 
death, it instantly enters a new-made spiritual body, in which it soars 
to heaven, leaving the old body of flesh and bone to rest in the arms 
of an eternal sleep. Thus would they have us believe in a resurrection 
which is no resurrection. For the substance, they would give us the 
shadow; for the radiance which the gospel sheds upon the sepulcher of 
our buried friends, they would give us the gloom of an eternal mid- 
night. If men choose to amuse themselves with theories of their own 
invention, let them not attempt to impose them upon others, by profess- 
ing to derive them from the Bible. For what can be plainer than the 
fact that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the 
body? 


It is the dead who are to be raised. It. is the body which is “sown in 


Ch. xl.] RESURRECTION OF THE M1UMAN BODY. 503 


corruption,” that is to he “ raised in incorruption;” that which is “sown 
in dishonor,” is to be “ raised in glory;” the same that is “sown in weak: 
ness,” is to be “raised in power;” that body which is “sown a natural 
body,” the same, and not another, is to be “raised a spiritual body.” 
“All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.” 
Was that spiritual body which the soul is supposed to put on at death 
ever in the grave? How, then, can it be the resurrection body? The 
theory which thus teaches is as palpably anti-scriptural as any thing 
ean he conceived to be. It even denies the resurrection of Christ, and 
makes “vain,” not only the “preaching” of the apostle, but the “faith” 
of the Christian ; for it is “our vile body” which is to “be fashioned like 
unto Christ’s glorious body.” 

2. It will be a spiritual boy. This the apostle has expressl y declared ; 
but what shall be the peculiar properties of those “ spiritual” bodies, 
distinguishing them from gross matter, and from the immaterial essence 
which 1s to dwell within them, is placed beyond our reach. In this 


respect, ‘it doth not yet appear what we shall be.” This much, how- 


ever, is clear: they will be free from weariness, pain, an The 
inhabitants of that land shall never say, “We are sick.” “ They shall 


hunger no more, neither thirst any more.” “God shall wipe away all 
tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, __ 


St. Paul says: “They shall be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” 
And St. John asserts: “We shall be like him, for we shall see him as 
he is.” 

Perhaps the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Tabor was designed 
to impart a faint idea concerning the glorious character of the resurrec- 
tion body. St. Matthew says: “He was transfigured before them, and 
his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.” 
So overwhelming was the impression on the minds cf the apostles, that 
they seemed for the time to be unconscious that they were in the body, 
or bez snged to this lower world. Peter said: “Lord, it 1 good for us 
to ke here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for 
thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.” How transcendently glo- 
rious must have been the body of our Lord, when the apostles were so 
transported by its effulgence as to forget that they were still pilgrims 
of earth, and inhabitants of tabernacles of clay! And yet, here was 
presented but a faint adumbration of that glorified body, before which 


i. 


504 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 8. 


angels are now, in deep admiration, veiling their faces, and “like unto” 
which the bodies of the risen saints are to “be fashioned.” Well might 
St. Paul, in speaking on this subject, exclaim: “ Behold, I show you a 
mystery.” Yes! it is a mystery sufficient to fill even heaven itself 
with amazement, that these frail bodies should be exalted to such celes- 
tial glory. 

4. But there is to be a resurrection “ both of the just and of the unjust. 
Some are to be raised “ to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever- 
lasting contempt.” But while we are furnished with intimations 30 
bright, in reference to the bodies of the saints, a cloud, dark as midnight, 
is left upon the bodies of the wicked. We may reasonably infer that 
they will be as horrible in their appearance as sin and guilt can render 
them. 

5. Again: the resurrection is to be universal. All the human family that 
have lived and died, from Adam to his youngest son. How vast, there- 
fore, will be the assemblage! “In a moment, in the twinkling of an 
eye, at the last trump,” all, from the earth and from the sea, from Asia, 
Europe, Africa, America, and from the scattered isles that spot the 
ocean, of every people, language, and character, shall then come forth 
to life. While the dead, in countless millions, shall leave their earthly 
sepulcher or watery grave, the living “shall be changed,” and all “shall 
be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.” 

6. Once more: As to the time of the resurrection, some have supposed, 
from the twentieth chapter of Revelation, that the martyrs are to be 
raised “a thousand years” before “the rest of the dead ;” but the more 
probable opinion is, that the resurrection there spoken of is figurative; 
that the martyrs are to be raised in the holy lives and burning zeal of the 
living saints, in the same sense in which the holy Elijah was raised in 
the person of John the Baptist. 

The general tenor of Scripture on this subject seems to indicate that 
all the dead shall be raised at the same time; or, at least, with no con- 
siderable interval of time between. The apostle speaks of the resur- 
rection in general as taking place “at the sound of the trump.” Martha 
said to the Saviour, in reference to her brother Lazarus, “I know that 
he shall rise again, in the resurrection, at the last day.” From these, 
and other passages, we conclude that the resurrection of the whole 
human family shall take place “at the end of the world.” But how 
long the world is to stand, is known to God alone. “At such an hour as 
we look not, the Son of man shall come.” 

7. We close this chapter by presenting the doctrine of the resurree 
tion as a ground of encouraging hope to the Christian. 


Aerneral Cente 


} 
~ 


Uh. x1.] RESURRECTION OF THE HUMAN BODY. 505 


That a glorious resurrection, and a blissful immortality, animated the 
hopes of the Old Testament saints, is testified by St. Paul, in the elev- 
\ enth chapter to the Hebrews. In reference to Abraham he says: “He 


‘aN eer R -and—maker-is 


God.” Of Moses he says: “ He had respect unto.the recompense of the. 
reward.” ~ Who can read the history of the ancient worthies, as detailed 
in the Old Testament, or as commented on by St. Paul, in the chapter 
above named, and believe that their hopes were limited to the present 
world? “If in this life only they had hope,” how can we account. for 
their perseverance amid persecution and affliction? They “had trial 
of cruel mockings and scourgings, of bonds and imprisonment; they 
were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with 
the sword; they wandered about in sheep-skins and goat-skins, being 
destitute, afflicted, tormented ; (of whom the world was not worthy ;) 
they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of 
the earth.” And what, we may ask, encouraged and animated their 
souls? Surely nothing on this side the grave. Their faith pierced the 
vista ot futurity. It rose above the world, and fastened upon a “ better 
inheritance” in the celestial Canaan. 

But when we open the New Testament, and read the history of the 
apostles and first Christians, we find the resurrection of the dead their 
constant inspiring theme. They “preached Jesus and the resurrection” 
as the ground of their own consolation, and the only hope of a ruined 
world. Sustained and comforted by this doctrine, “they counted not 
their own lives dear unto them,” but, with undaunted heroism, faced the 
frowns and scoffs of an ungodly world; and many of them fell martyrs 
to the holy cause. From the apostles’ days to the present time, in all 
the successive ages of the Church, this glorious doctrine has animated 
the Christian’s heart in the darkest hour of his pilgrimage, and in the 
extremity of death enabled him to shout: “O death! where is thy 
sting? O grave! where is thy victory?” 

In conclusion, we would ask, What brighter hope can we, as Chris- 
tians, desire, than this doctrine inspires? It lifts to our believing eyes 
the veil of futurity; it lights up the smile of joy on the lip of death; it 
pours a heavenly radiance on the dark and lonely tomb; and, in accents 
sweet as angelic voices can pronounce, whispers in the ear of the dis- 
consolate mourner, as he closes the eyes, or follows to the grave the pale 
remains of the most beloved one on earth: “Thy brother shall rise 
again!” Erase the pleasing hope of the resurrection from the Chris- 
tian’s heart and you blot the sun from his moral firmament, and dark- 
ness—thick, impenetrable darkness—enshrouds the life, and settles upou 


506 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


(P.1. B. 8 


the tomb, But let this hope bloom with the freslness of immortality 
in the believer’s soul, and he can smile amid the storms of life, and tri- 
umph in the hour of dissolution, exclaiming with the apostle: “Thanks 
be to God, who giveth us the victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.” 


QUESTIONS ON 


| Qvurstion 1. On what does the doctrine 


of the resurrection depend for its 
support? 


. What philosophical objection is made 


to it? 


. What is the reply? 
. What Scripture proofs are brought 


from the Old Testament? 


. What from the New Testament? 
. How is it proved that the same body 


laid in the grave is to be raised? 

What is implied in the spirituality of 
the resurrection body? 

What is said of its resemblance to the 
glorified body of our Lord? 

How is it shown that both the just 


CHAPTER XL. 


10. 
te 
12. 
13. 
14. 


15. 


16. 


and the unjust shall be raised, and 
what is said of the bodies of the 
latter? 

Are the whole human family to be 
raised ? 

Are all to be raised at the same time? 

What is the proof? 

How is it shown that this doctrine 
encouraged the hopes of the Old 
Testament saints? 

How is it shown that it animated 
the apostles and first Christians? 
What should be its influence on 

Christians in all ages? 

What would be the affect if the doe 

trine were renounced? 


Ch xii. THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 507 


CHAPTER XLI. 
THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 


Tuis is one of the most solemn and deeply-interesting subjects exhib- 
ited in the Bible; yet it rarely occupies a degree of serious thought 
commensurate with its importance. Many, if they reflect on the sub- 
ject at all, view it as a matter so immensely distant, that it fails to 
impress their minds with that solemnity which its importance should 
inspire. 

I. We inquire, first, for the evidences of the fact that there will be a 
general judgment. 

te The certainty-of this-general_judgment-may be argued, first, from 
the attributes of God. All who believe in the existence of God, must 
admit that he is a being of infinite perfections. He must not only be 
possessed of infinite wisdom and goodness, but also of infinite justice, 
equity, and rectitude. And as he has seen fit to create rational, intelli- 
gent, moral agents, his government over them must not only be in 
accordance with the nature with which he has endued them, but alsc 
in harmony with his own perfections. Hence he must not govern them 
either as inanimate substances or as irrational beings, but as accountable 
subjects. This requires that they be placed under a law which is holy, 
just, and good, according to the nature of God their maker; and that 
they be rewarded or punished, not according to the whim or caprice of 
an arbitrary tyrant, but in consistency with the principles of strict jus- 
tice and equity. 

Upon the hypothesis that the existence of man terminates with his 
present mode of being, agreeably to all the rules of reasoning which we 
are capable of appreciating, we can see no possible way of reconciling 
the allotments and fortunes of human beings in this life with the prin- 
ciples of a righteous administration. Nothing can be more obvious to 
every candid, reflecting mind, than the fact that mankind are not 
rewarded and punished, in this world, “ according to their works.” The 
most wicked and abominable often occupy positions the most elevated 
and advantageous. They, in many instances, are comparatively free 


508 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5. 


from toil and care, tribulation and affliction, surrounded with splendor, 
and luxuriating in wealth and worldly pleasure; while the pious and 
the good, the amiable and the virtuous, are doomed to a life of toil and 
hardships, penury and want, affliction and suffering Can this be recon- 
ciled with the justice and equity of God? Dery cne righteous awards 
of a future judgment, and it is impossible. Hven admit that, in many 
cases, even in this life, the virtuous, to some extent, share the reward 
of their merit, and the vicious are overtaken with condign punishment 
for their crimes, yet still, so long as there exists a solitary exception to 
this rule, the justice of God must look to an hereafter for the liquidation 
of her claims. While the history of the world mirrors to our gaze a 
Job or a Lazarus in affliction, a Bunyan in prison, a Christian martyr 
at the stake, or an innocent babe in the agonies of death, the justice of 
God must ever point the sufferer to his final reward in the future. A 
day of future reckoning is demanded, not only to furnish a reward for 
suffering innocence in this world, but also to mete out to the wicked the 
just punishment of their sins. What though a Haman may be 
“hanged on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai ;”” what though 
a Herod may be “eaten of worms,” yet, still, while there remains one- 
instance of a fraud, an oppression, a slander, a murder, or a wrong in 
any shape, unpunished in this life, the sword of justice must still point 
to the judgment of the last day, where every secret sin shall be fully 
disclosed and duly punished. , 

2. That there will be a day of future judgment, may be argued from 
the power of natural conscience. In this way, “ conscience does make 
cowards of us all.” How can we account for the fact that the criminal 
is often made to tremble in communion with his own heart, with his 
own conscience and his God, when no human eye is upon him, and he 
has no particular ground to apprehend detection or punishment? Oft 
under such circumstances he trembles to be alone in the dark, and is 
made to carry a hell in his own bosom. What can produce this dread 
and horror, but the “fearful apprehension of fiery indignation” in a 
day of future reckoning? 

We find this testimony of conscience everywhere, in both pagan and 
Christian lands. Its line has “ gone out through all the earth,” and its 
voice to “the ends of the world.”” This conscience, like a pursuing 
specter, has shaken its “gory locks” in the face. of the assassin, and 
caused him to quake with fear in his secluded chamber; and it has 
planted the pillow of the guilty monarch with thorns. How can we 
account for this, but by admitting the fact that it is the “voice of God 
in man ’’—an implantation of his all-pervading Spirit? But are we to 


Cn. xii.) THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 509 


conclude that God is mocking his creatures? that he has implanted 
this monitor, uselessly to “torment them before the time?” Why did 
that smiting of the knees so suddenly seize upon the voluptuous Chal. 
dean monarch, when his eye traced the “handwriting upon the wall?” 
And why did wicked Felix “tremble,” when he listened to the reason- 
ing of St. Paul about a “judgment to come?” It was because this 
divinely-bestowed internal monitor pointed them to a day of future 
reckoning and punishment. 

3. But the doctrine of a future general judgment is very explicitly 
declared in the inspired word of God. 

In reference to a day of judgment, David says: “Our God shali 
come, and shal_ not keep silence; a fire shall devour before him, and it 
shall be very tempestuous round about him. He shall call to the 
heavens from above, and to the earth, that he may judge his people.” 
Ps. 1. 3, 4. Solomon exclaims: “ Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, 
and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the 
ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know thou, 
that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment.” Eccl. xi. 9. 
And again: “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with 
every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. xii, 
14. Daniel prophesies thus: “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, 
and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and 
the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery 
flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came 
forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and 
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was 
aet, and the books were opened.” Dan. vii. 9, 10. 

Our Saviour gives a particular account of the proceedings of the 
judgment-day in the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew. He com- 
mences with these words: “When the Son of nan shall come in his 
glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and 
he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his 
sheep from the goats.” 

St. Paul says: “For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of 
Christ.” Rom. xiv. 10. Again: “Because he hath appointed a day in 
the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom 
he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in 
that he hath raised him from the dead.” Acts xvii. 31. Again: “And 
it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment’ 
Heb. ix. 27. 


510 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B.S 


St. John says: “And I saw a great white throne, and hii that sat 
on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there 
was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, 
stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was 
opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of 
those things which were written in the books, according to their works.” 
Rev. xx.11,12. Again: “And behold I come quickly; and my reward 
is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” Rev. 
xxii. 12. 

The scriptures here quoted are ample to satisfy all who believe in the 
inspiration of the Bible, that at the termination of the present dispen- 
sation. there will be a general judgment. 

II. We next inquire concerning the time of this judgment—when will 
it take place? 

1. No one, even of the inspired writers, has pretended to fix the pre- 
cise date of this occurrence. How presumptuous, therefore, for unin- 
spired mortals to attempt it! And how little short of blasphemy should 
all such assumptions be viewed, when it is remembered that our Saviour 
has declared that “of that day and hour knoweth no man; no, not the 
angels of heaven, but my Father only.” Matt. xxiv. 36. Perfectly 
accordant with this position is also the declaration of St. Peter, that 
“the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.” 2 Pet. iii. 10. 

2. Some have supposed that the righteous will be raised from the 
dead and judged, at the commencement of Christ’s millennial reign, 
and that then will take place what the Scriptures style the “ first resur- 
rection.” But this view cannot be reconciled with the general tenor of 
Scripture on the subject, which represents the judgment as one grand 
connected process at the end of the world. It is “a day” which “God 
hath appointed ”—“ the day of judgment”—“ the day of the Lord”— 
“the great and terrible day.” ‘All such scriptures are directly against 
the notion that there will be two days of judgment—the one for the 
righteous, and the other for the wicked, separated from each other by 
the lapse of thousands of years. The Scriptures evidently seem to place 
the judgment at the end of the world, immediately subsequent to the 
general resurrection. 

Admitting, as many infer from the twentieth chapter of Revelation, 
that the martyrs will be Jiterally raised from the dead, (a position which 
may well be doubted,) and will live and reign with Christ “the thou- 
sand years,” still it by no means follows, either that all the righteous 
dead will then be raised, or that any portion of the general judgment 
will then take place. 


Oh. xi} THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 4511 


3. It may be asked, Why should the judgment be deferred till the end 
of the world? Why might not each individual receive his final sentence 
at death, and enter at once on his eternal destiny? 

To this it might be enough to reply, that the all-wise J udge has not 
so ordered it. But if we may be allowed to infer, from apparent fit- 
ness, the reasons of the divine conduct, we think there are several con- 
siderations which indicate the propriety of placing the judgment at the 
end of the world. 

(1) It will promote the declarative glory of God. In the presence of 
an assembled universe, it will then be shown that “the J udge of all the 
earth will do right.” The sentence of the Judge, whether for acquittal 
or condemnation, will then be sanctioned by the countless millions of 
angels and redet:aed spirits. 

(2) The fact that the influence of human actions extends beyond the 
present life of the individual, indicates the propriety of deferring the 
judgment till earthly things shall be no more. The example of both 
the good and the bad “lives after them.” The influence of the example 
and writings of such men as St. Paul, Luther, Wesley, Baxter, Dod- 
dridge, Washington, and Wilberforce, will continue to bless the world 
to the latest generation. On the other hand, the influence of the ex: 
ample and writings of the wicked still remain to curse the world through 
successive generations, The pernicious writings of Hume, Bolingbroke, 
Rousseau, Voltaire, and Volney, are still in the world, exerting their 
influence over the destinies of immortal souls. It is reasonable, there- 
fore, that the judgment be deferred till the end of the world. Then 
the entire actual influence of each individual can be more fully exhib- 
ited in the view of an intelligent universe, that all may witness that 
every man shall be rewarded “according as his work shall be.” 

III. Important events to precede the general judgment. 

Nothing can be more certain than the fact, or more solemn and im. 
portant than the process, of the general judgment. In portraying the 
scenes of the last day, many have drawn largely upon their imagination. 
It is, perhaps, but an insufficient apology for the freedom thus taken 
with a matter so solemn and important, that after the utmost efforts at 
description, all must fail to reach the fullness of the reality. Yet it 
must be admitted that, as all our knowledge upon this subject is derived 
from revelation, it is but a sober dictate of wisdom that we endeavor to 
learn all that God has seen proper to reveal concerning this matter, 
and then, forbearing to indulge in flights of imagination, see to it, 
that we secure a suitable preparation for that “ great and terrible 
day.” 


512 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PL asBPs, 


1. The preachi 7 we are 
assured, must precede the general judgment. This fact we infer from 


our Saviour’s words: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached 
in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end 
come.” Matt. xxiv. 14. We are aware that Dr. Clarke, and some 
modern critics, interpret the entire prediction in this chapter as refer- 
ring exclusively to the destruction of Jerusalem. It cannot be denied 
that the passage does refer to that event; and, perhaps, such is its pri- 
mary import. But it seems probable that this, like some other prophe- 
cies of Scripture, had a double sense, referring not only to the destrue- 
tion of Jerusalem, but also to the end of the world—the former being 
typical of the latter. We have not room here to discuss this question 
particularly, nor is it a matter of importance in this connection. But 
when we remember the question proposed by the disciples, to which this 
discourse of our Saviour is a reply—“ Tell us when shall these things 
be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the 
world?” and when we remember, farther, that our Saviour also here used 
this language: “And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in 
heaven ; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall 
see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and 
great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a 
trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, 
from one end of heaven to the other”—when we remember these things, 
we cannot help believing that, not only the destruction of Jerusalem, 
but also the end of the world, is here the subject of prediction. Hence, 
before that “great day” shall come, the gospel message shall be deliv- 
ered to all the nations of the earth, that all may receive, or reject, the 
great salvation. 

2. The Bible predicts “signs and wonders” of solemn import, as pre- 
cursors of the general judgment: “And I will show wonders in heaven 
above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of 
smoke: the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, 
before that great and notable day of the Lord come.” Acts ii. 19, 20. 
“And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; 
and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the 
waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after 
those things which are coming on the earth; for the powers of heaven 
shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a 
cloud with power and great glory.” Luke xxi, 25-27. 


3. The manner of aur Saviour’s coming to judgment On this sub- 


ject, also, we know only what has been revealed; but these Scripture 


Ch. xli.} THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 513 


announcements are glowing and impressive. On this subject we read: 
“The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the 
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of Ged.” 1 Thess. iv. 16. 
‘The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 
in flaming fire.” 2 Thess. i.7,8. “And ye shall see the Son of man 
sitting on the right hand of power, and ccm'ng in the clouds of heaven.” 
Mark xiv. 62. “Behold he cometh wiih clouds; and every eye shal 
sze him, and they also which pierced him; and all kindreds of the earth 
shall wail because of him.” Rev.i.7. And once more: “I saw a great 
white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the 
heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them.” Rev. xx. 11. 

Thus it appears that He who was once the “babe of Bethlehem,” 
lying in the manger—He who was once the meek “ Man of sorrows,” 
having not “where to lay his head,” will again descend to this lower 
world, not, as once, the helpless infant, tne “despised and rejected of 
men,” the insulted, buffeted, scourged, and crucified One, but as the 
“mighty God,” the Sovereign of the universe, the “Judge of all men.” 
He comes now, not to weep over Jerusalem; not to suffer hunger, and 
toil, and weariness; not to listen to the malignant cries of fiendish foes 
—“Away with him! Away with him!” but, seated upon a throne 
of glory more brilliant than ten thousand suns, to sway his judicial 
scepter over men and devils. If his rapt disciples were so transported 
with his glory on the mount of transfiguration, what will be the effect 
upon the gazing myriads of admiring saints, when they shall behold him 
coming with “ten thousand times ten thousand angels,” encircled with 
his “great glory” upon the throne of judzment! 

4. The next grand event ushering in the judgment process is, the 
eaising of the dead. “'The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be 
raised.” . . . “All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall 
come forth.” John v. 28, 29. “The dead, small and great, shall stand 
before God.” How astonishing, how sublime, the scene! The awful 
trump of God, pouring its shrill tones louder and more terrific than ten 
thousand thunders, shall awake from their dusty slumbers the millions 
of earth’s buried children. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” 
tombs burst, vaults open, marble piles are scattered, the dust stirs, “the 
earth casts out her dead,” the sea gives up her sepulchered millions, 
death and the grave yield their prey, while countless angels collect the 
saints at the right hand of the Judge. But still the trumpet sounds; 
louder and more terrific waxes the awful peal; and now the wielke-? 
come forth—in countless thrones.4hy— Wwev litt the despairing wail— 
“ ghame- ; 33 


J 


514 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5. 


“Mountains an! rocks fall on us, and hide us from the face of him 
that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb! for the 
great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” But 
the resistless summons places them on the left hand of the Judge. 

IV. The solemn process and final issues of the judgment. 

1. Jesus, the Son of God, presides as the enthroned Judge. This fact 
the Scriptures plainly teach. Our Saviour declares: “The Father 
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son.” John 
v. 22. St. Paul announces that Jesus “was ordained of God to be the 
Judge of quick and dead.” Acts x.42. And that God “hath appointed 
a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousress by that man 
whom he hath ordained.” Acts xvii. 31. Various other scriptures assert 
the same doctrine. 

The mediatorial work is emphatically the reign of Christ. By and 
through him the Father stoops in mercy to rcvicem his apostate crea- 
tures. Through him is given to all the tender of gospel salvation. 
And as all men, since the Fall, are held responsible, as probationers 
under the provisions of the new covenant, for the acceptance or rejec- 
tion of eternal life, so all shall be summoned to account under the 
administration of that Mediator, for the manner in which they have 
treated the gospel call of reconciliation. The fact that Jesus Christ is 
to preside as final Judge in that “great and notable day,” not only har- 
monizes with the principles of the mediatorial scheme, but is strikingly 
adapted to the condition of the persons to be judged. To the saints, 
what joyful assurance will be derived from the fact, that he whom they 
meet upon his throne of judgment is the same “ compassionate High- 
priest” who “bore their sins in his own body on the tree!” On the 
other hand, with what gu‘lt and shame must the rejecters of the gospel, 
the malignant foes, the foul blasphemers, and the wicked murderers of 
our Lord, be compelled to stand as criminals before the bar of him 
whom they have so scornfully rejected and derided! With what an- 
guish shall they then “look upon him whom they have pierced!” 

2. Before the judgment-seat shall stand all men—of all nations and 
all ages—the entire race of Adam. From the scrutiny of that fearful 
ordeal there is no possibility of escape. Not only mankind, but devils 
too, will there be judged; for God hath reserved them in “ everlasting 
chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 6. 
What imagination can conceive the magnitude of the throng, or the 
sublimity of the scene! The Judge sits enthroned, while he places the 
Tereny Cauvuvsk~.vicht, and the wicked on the left; but with what dif- 


woot 


Ch. xii.) THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 515 


3. But by what Jaw, or according to what rule, will the judgment be 
conducted ? 

The “books will be opened.” Whether this will be literal or not, we 
do not know, nor need we inquire. One thing is certain: it will be a 
“righteous judgment.” Men will be judged according to their privi- 
leges and opportunitiet — according to the light of the dispensation 
under which they have lived: the heathen, by the law of nature; the 
Jews, by the law of Moses; and Christian nations, by the gospel. There 
will be, as declared by St. Paul, “no respect of persons with God. For 
as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and 
as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law. . . 
(For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the 
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto 
themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, 
their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile 
accusing or else excusing one another:) in the day when God shall 
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” 
Rom. ii. 11-16. 

4. What will be the subject-matter of adjudication? It will be no 
contest for literary fame or military glory, between ambitious aspirants. 
The pride of learning, the blandishments of place, the aristocracy of 
wealth, and the insignia of power, are all forgotten. Nothing is re- 
garded but moral qualities. The only inquiry will be, Who is good, and 
who is bad? Who has lived according to the light of his dispensation, 
and who has “loved darkness rather than light, because his deeds were 
evil”? How different from the judgments of this world will be the 
estimate then placed upon all that now engages the minds, the hearts, 
and the pursuits of men! How worthless to the mighty conquerors 
will then appear the thrones to which they ascended, “with garments 
dripping wet with human gore!” What a sting will the memory of all 
his sensual gratifications then be to the abandoned voluptuary! What 
worthless trash, in the view of the sordid miser, will then be the golden 
pelf he now so stupidly adores! And what veriest trifles will then 
appear all those transitory things for which the immortal soul is now 
go willingly bartered! The “veil shall then be torn from the face of 
all nations.” False colors will lose their attractions; and fictitious 
appearances will be converted into realities. Then vice will appear 
in all its naked deformity, and virtue in all her unfading charms. 

In the investigations of that day, the entire field of moral conduct 
will be swept. Nothing in that department will be omitted. Every 
ect, and word, and thought—all that coms under the head of mora) 


516 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {P. iB. 5 


right or wrong—all that constitutes character morally good or bad— 
will be brought into view, anc taken into the account. What an aston- 
ishing revealment of hidden things will then take place! What an 
exposure of midnight crime! What a mirror of lives! What an 
unfolding of hearts! 

Some speculations, more curious than useful, have been put forth 
concerning the forms and details of the proceedings of the judgment. 
The question has been discussed: Will “books be opened” and used 
literally? To this we simply reply, We do not know. But this much 
is clearly implied: the process will be conducted with as much minute 
and detailed accuracy, as though every item were distinctly read off 
from a legible record. There will be no liability to omission or mis- 
take. 

Again, it has been asked, Will the past sins of the righteous, which 
had been forgiven in this world, be specifically exhibited before the judg- 
ment-seat? On the one hand, it is argued that they will, because it is 
written, “God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret 
thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” On the other hand, 
it is contended that they will not; for God says, concerning them, 
“ Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” Whether the past 
sins of the righteous will be specifically exposed to public view in that 
immense crowd, or not, it is clearly inferable, from the general tenor 
of Scripture, that they will not be so exhibited as to mar the happiness 
of God’s redeemed; but, on the contrary, the remembrance of them 
shall only increase their gratitude and felicity. 

5. In conclusion, we notice the final issues of the judgment. These 
are set forth in the sentence to be pronounced. 

The assembled race of Adam, with all the “angels which kept not 
their first estate,” will then be standing before the bar of the inex- 
orable Judge of all. Their entire history, as accountable agents, has 
been made manifest. Their probation has been closed forever. The 
reign of mercy, and the offer of pardon to the sinner, are over. The 
past is irretrievable. The future is now to be fixed by stern decree. 
The final destiny of all is now to be sealed. How solemn the moment! 
How pregnant with issues of the most awful import! The testimony is 
closed. Holy angels and redeemed saints have borne witness to the 
truthfulness of the presentation of character and conduct; and devils, 
and wicked men, bow their knees in confession of their guilt. 

And now the Judge proceeds to announce the final awards. To those 
on his right hand he says: “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the 
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” But to 


Ch. xli.] THE GENERAL JUDQMEN? 517 


those on his left hand he says: “Depart from me, ye cursed, into ever: 
lasting fire, prepared for the devil and ‘his angels.” “And these shall 
go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life 
eternal.” ; 

But the Scriptures inform us that at the great day of judgment this 
earth shall be consumed by fire. “The day of the Lord will come as a 
thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a 
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the eartk 
also, and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up.” 2 Pet. iii. 10. 
The magnificence and awful grandeur of this scene—the passing away. 
of the heavens, the melting of the elements, and the burning of the 
earth—we shall not attempt to portray. But this will be “the end of 
earth” — at least in its present state. The burning of the world is 
but the consuming of the hive from which the rising dead—a countless 
swarm—have just issued. It has filled its measure in the divine pur- 
pose. It has furnished a theater for sin’s destructive sway, and death’s 
appalling dominion, as well as for redemption’s glorious achievements. 
But now the visible heavens and the earth shall be no more. But how 
infinitely more important than the material universe are the destinies 
of immortal intelligences! While we leave dissolving nature to perish 
by the action of the “ flaming fire,” let us pause a moment, and contem- 
plate the departure of all from the solemn judgment of the last day. 

Let us look at the import of the final sentence: “ Depart from Mr.” 
—What! must they be driven from the presence of their God, the cen- 
ter and source of all bliss? “ Ye cursed.”—Not allowed to go alone! 
No; they must bear away upon their heads the burning curse of their 
Judge! “Into everlasting fire.’—They must go into a place of most 
excruciating torment, where the action of the keenest element must 
prey forever upon their undying sensibilities. “ Prepared for the.devil 
and his angels.”—The masters “to whom they have yielded themselves 
servants to obey”—fiends of darkness—are their only, their doomed, 
companions forever and ever! “But what shall be the funeral obsequies 
of a lost soul? Where shall we find the tears fit to be wept at such a 
spectacle? Or could we realize the calamity in all its extent, what 
tokens of commiseration or concern would be deemed equal to the occa- 
sion? Would it suffice for the sun to veil his light, and the moon her 
brightness? to cover the ocean with mourning, and the heavens with 
sackcloth? Or, were the whole fabric of nature to become animated 
and vocal, would it be possible for her to utter a groan too deep, or a 
ery too piercing, to express the magnitude and extent of such a catas- 
trophe?” How tremendous, then, how overwhelmingly awful, must be 


518 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1.B 6 


that sentence which shall consign to remediless ruin the millions vf the 
damned ! , 

But how far different the award of the righteous! “Come, ye blessed 
of my Father.”—Approach near the Redeemer, and receive that bless- 
ing which God only can bestow. “Inherit the kingdom prepared for 
you from the foundation of the world.”—Your race is run—receive the 
prize. The battle has been fought, and the victory won—receive the 
crown, and enter the kingdom. And thus they leave the bar of judg- 
ment to enter the joys of their Lord on high, where they shall forever 
be with him, beholding his glory, and basking in the beams of his 
unbounded love. : 


“Lo! the heavenly spirit towers, 
Like flames o’er nature’s funeral pyre, 
Triumphs in immortal powers, 
And claps her wings of fire!” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XLI. 


Question 1. What is the first argument, 7. What solemn events are connected 


offered to prove the certainty of the with our Saviour’s appearance at 
judgment? judgment? 

2. How is it proved from natural con-| 8. What scriptures prove that Jesus is 
science ? to be the Judge? 

3. What are some of the Scripture proofs | 9. Who will constitute the subjects to 
offered ? be judged? 

4. What two reasons are given forde-|10. By what law will they be 
ferring the judgment till the end of judged? 
the world? 11. What will be the subject-matter of 

5. What events are named as preceding adjudication ? 
the judgment? 12. What are the final issues of the 


6 What are its immediate precursors? judgment? 


v 


Ch. xlii.] FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 519 


CHAPTER XLII. 
FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 


THE theme here proposed is not one of a pleasant character to the 
contemplation of the sympathetic Christian heart; yet it cannot be 
omitted in the presentation of a complete system of the doctrines of 
revelation. As the compassionate father, from solemn conviction of 
duty, must sometimes correct his wayward child, however disagreeable 
the task, so the teacher of religion must not only exhibit the consola 
tions of the gospel, but also the denunciations of the law. He must 
not shun to “declare all the counsel of God.” 

In what will consist the future punishment of the wicked? And will it 
be eternal? These are the questions now to be considered. 

I. The NATURE of future punishment. 

Our information upon this subject must be derived solely from the 
language of Scripture. But it has long been debated whether these 
scriptures should be construed literally or figuratively. For aught that 
we can see, this controversy might still go on indefinitely, without any 
prospect of arriving at a certain conclusion. But of this much we may 
be assured: God cannot act deceptiously toward his creatures. In com- 
municating his will, he cannot employ figurative language of stronger 
import than the reality. His attributes forbid the hypothesis. Hence, 
if, in portraying the future punishment of the wicked, he has used 
figures of speech, they cannot transcend the reality. On the contrary, 
we have reason to infer that the figures used on this subject are but dim 
shadows of the awful substance. As, in reference to the future happi- 
ness of the righteous, after all the glowing Bible descriptions on the 
subject, it is written, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have 
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for 
them that love him;” so, as relates to the future punishment of the 
wicked, the rational inference is, that the strongest language and most 
striking figures must fail to impart an adequate conception of that cur 
of woe which is prepared for the finally impenitent. 

The terms used to describe this punishment are as strong as language 
can furnish. 


520 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. & 


1, Future punishment implies the direct infliction of pain by the action 


of a powerful external agency, 

The idea is clearly conveyed by such expressions as these: “ Flaming 
fire,” (2 Thess. i. 8,) “a furnace of fire,” (Matt. xiii. 42,) “ everlasting 
fire,” (Matt. xviii. 8 and xxv. 41,) “the fire is not quenched,” (Mark 
ix. 44,) “eternal fire,” (Jude 7,) “the lake of fire,” (Rev. xx. 15,) “the 
lake of fire and brimstone,” (Rev. xx. 10.) Perhaps these terms are 
not to be understood in a strictly literal sense. But admitting that 
they are not, we cannot therefore infer that the punishment indicated 
will be any the less severe. Cannot the same God who created the 
substance of fire as it exists in our world, and who will raise the body 
from the grave with renewed and indestructible powers and suscepti- 
bilities, provide an agency for the punishment of the wicked—call that 
agency “fire,” “fire and brimstone,” a “lake of fire,” or by what name 
we please—cannot he who made all things, create at a word an agency 
ten thousand times more powerful than the literal fire of this world, 
and perfectly adapted to impart to the undying nature of the sinner the 
most indescribable agony? The reasonable conclusion therefore is, that 
if the “fire” of future punishment is not literal, it will be vastly more 
intolerable. What language can depict, or what imagination con- 
ceive, the fullness of meaning implied in the phrase, to “dwell with 
devouring fire”—to “dwell with everlasting burnings!” 


2. It implies banishment to a_plac ; 
The Scriptures declare that the wicked shall be “cast into outer 


darkness, (Matt. xxii. 138 and xxv. 30,) and that to them “the mist of 
darkness is reserved forever,” (2 Pet. ii. 17,) and “the blackness of 
darkness forever.” Let this darkness be understood literally, and it 
denotes a condition inexpressibly horrible. We have read of a darkness 
in Egypt so thick that it could “be felt;” we have tried to imagine the 
cloud of gloom that would soon envelop our world, if the light of the 
sun and every star were to be instantly and completely quenched; but 
how indescribably inadequate must be these illustrations to portray the 
horrurs of that “outer darkness” into which the wicked will be driven, 
ard by which they will be forever overwhelmed! But if this language 
of the Bible is but figurative, then we must conclude that the reality 
will be still more terrible. Suppose that instead of “darkness” we are 
to uuderstand affliction, anguish, or tribulation, and that these, in their 
pGwer to impart misery, will be increased in proportion to the enlarged 
susceptibilities of the immortalized faculties of human beings, how 
appalling the thought of that utter wretchedness into which the ban- 
ished ones must be plunged! 


Ch. xlii.] FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED, 521 


3. It implies a state of deep distress and anguish. 

This is indicated by such language as the following: “Their worm 
dieth not, and their fire is not quenched,” (Mark ix. 44,) “there shall 
be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” (Matt. xiii. 15,) “the rich man lifted 
up his eyes in hell, being in torments;” and entreated Abraham, say- 
ing, “Send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and 
cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame ;” (Luke xvi. 23, 243) 
the wicked, it is said, “shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in 
the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb,” 
(Rev. xiv. 10.) Whatever may be the import of this language, or 
whatever may be the immediate source of their misery, it is certain the 
wicked will be doomed to suffer the most excruciating pain.’ There was 
distress and anguish when the old world “ perished by water;” “lam- 
entation and deep mourning” were heard in Ramah, when “ Rachel 
wept for her children ;” but what were these compared with that last, 
deeper, despairing wail, which shall one day come up from the pit, 
uttered by millions upon millions of burning tongues, sighing the ruin 
of millions upon millions of lost souls! 

4. It is called the “second death.” Death, if it be a figure here, is 
one of the strongest that language can express. It imports the deepest 
suffering. But here is a “death that never dies.” Not the mere disso- 
lution of the body, which we have so often witnessed, and which, how- 
ever protracted the suffering, however deep the breathing, however full 
of anguish the groanings, in a few hours is all over, and the spirit has 
“returned to God who gave it;” but a death which knows no termina- 
tion; whose groanings will never cease; whose agonies will never end. 
How dreadful the thought! 

5. This punishment implies banishment from God, and all that is good. 

“ Depart from Mr,” will be the fearful denunciation. To depart from 
all the sources of happiness in this world; from all the pleasures, all 
the riches, and all the honors, they have ever possessed or enjoyed; 
from all that is pleasing, or lovely, or desirable, which they have ever 
seen, or heard, or tasted; from all the good for which they have toiled 
or hoped—to depart from all these, were a dreadful calamity. But the 
sentence, “ Depart from Mr,” includes all this, and infinitely more. It 
implies the loss of all good—the loss of all bliss. It is expulsion to 
those outer, those nether regions, where the light of the sun, or of the 
noon, or of the stars, never penetrates; where the beautiful. scenes of 
nature, the flowers of spring, or the smile of friendship, shall never 
grect the eye; or the music of song, or the accents of love, fall on the 
ear. All is lost! Heaven is lost, with all its riches and grandeur! 


522 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 8. 


The society of the holy angels and of the blood-washed saints is lost! 
The robes, the harps, the thrones, and the crowns of glory, are lost! 
God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are lost! The soul for which the 
Saviour died is lost! 

6. It implies the deepest remorse of conscience. 

If the justice of God can now implant in the guilty breast the scor- 
picn-sting of conscience, with what increased fury will that conscience 
prey upon the guilty soul, when quickened, and illumed, and maddened, 
by the fires of the last day! The accusing voice of this dire tormenter, 
rising above the roar of the flames, and pouring its thunder tones upon 
every ear, shall pierce all hearts with anguish more pungent than could 
the bite of ten thousand scorpions; while the fearful apprehension of 
still deeper woe shall envenom the gnawings of the undying worm. 

: 7. This punishment will include the direct outpouring of the wrath of 
God— . a SO | a a, ae 

God the Saviour will then execute upon his enemies the fierceness of his 
wrath. The wicked will not only be driven away from God, but they 
shall be pursued by the sword of his avenging justice. They shall be 
“ punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, 
and from the glory of his power.” God shall “speak to them in his 
wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.” The Psalmist says of the 
wicked, God “shall take them away as with a whirlwind, both living, 
and in his wrath.” Ps. lviii. 9. And “upon the wicked he shall rain 
snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the 
portion of their cup.” Ps. xi. 6. St. Paul declares: “The Lord Jesus 
shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, 
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the 
gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. 

It is difficult to understand such scriptures otherwise than as imply- 
ing the direct exertion of the divine power in the punishment of the 
wicked. What must be the fearfulness of that stroke which the energy 
of Omnipotence will then inflict! What bitterness must be in that cup 
of indignation which is poured by the hand of infinite Justice! “The 
thunder of his power who can understand?” What an aggravation to 
the torment of the wicked will it then be, to know that he whose aveng- 
ing hand is upon them, is the One whom they willfully and wickedly 
insulted, derided, and rejected! But now he says: “I also will laugh 
at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; when your fear 
cometh as desolation, and your destruction as a whirlwind.” Lord help 
us to “flee from the wrath to come,” that we may be prepared for “ the 
great and the terrible day!” 


-_ 


Ch. xlii.] FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 528 


Il. Will the punishment of the wicked be ErERNAL? 

Ou this subject, several different theories have been advocated in 
opposition to what we consider the plain truth of revelation. Though 
the shades of difference in sentiment among the abettors of these cog: 
nate systems of error are too numerous and unimportant to justify a 
distinct statement of each, yet they may all be comprised under four 
divisions. 

1. Materialism.—This teaches that the soul is the result of the organ- 
ism of the body, and can only exist in connection with it, and that con- 
sequently, when the body dies, the soul will cease to exist till it shall 
be restored with the body in the resurrection. 

2. Destructionism.—This teaches that the punishment to which the 
wicked will be sentenced at the final judgment, will be annihilation. 

3. Universalism.—This teaches that all punishment for sin is in this 
life, and that all men enter immediately into a state of endless happi- 
ness at death. 

4. Restorationism.—This teaches that the wicked, after having been 
punished in a future state, for a limited period, in proportion to the 
number and magnitude of their sins, will be admitted into endless hap- 
piness. 

It will be perceived that the theory here called Restorationism, is but 
another phase of Universalism ; but as the great body of Universalists 
hold to the third theory, as above presented, we have, for the sake of 
distinction, classed the Restorationists separately. We will also add, 
that some Universalists are likewise Materialists, holding to the sleep 
of the soul with the body in death till the resurrection. We likewise 
remark, that many who are regarded as Socinians, or Unitarians, agree 
substantially with Universalists in most of their distinctive views. 

What we consider the Scripture doctrine on this subject, is this: 

The souls of men, at the death of the body, will immediately enter 
into a state of happiness or misery, while the body will sleep in the 
grave till the resurrection, when soul and body will be reunited, and 
judged “according to the deeds done in the body,” and then be admitted 
to endless happiness, or consigned to endless misery. 

It will readily be seen that the establishment of this theery will 
necessarily be a complete refutation of all the heterodox views we have 
named. To enter upon this question, is really but little different from 
asking, Is the Bible true? So numerous and unequivocal are the 
Scripture proofs that the finally impenitent will be eternally punished 
hereafter for their sins in this life, that if we did not know the fact to 
the contrary, we would pronounce it impossible for any sane person, 


524 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P... B.& 


believing in divine yevelation, to dispute the position. But it is well 
known that there is a class of persons called Universalists, professing to 
be Christians, and to derive their creed from the Bible, who contend 
that all mankind are punished in this life according to the magnitude 
and number of their sins, and in consistency with the strict principles 
of retributive justice. Accordingly, they teach that the judgment of 
God is restricted to this life, and that every man suffers in this world 
the full penalty of his sins. The doctrine of a general judgment at 
the end of the worlc, and any punishment of the wicked, in a future 
state, they ridicule and deride. 

1. The Scriptures directly teach the endless punishment of the wicked. 
These passages are numerous, but we will cite only a few, which we 
think direct and conclusive. 

Our Saviour says: “It is better for thee to enter into life halt or 
maimed, rather than having two hands, or two feet, to be cast into ever- 
lasting fire.’ Matt. xviii. 8. “If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is 
better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go 
into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where their worm 
- dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Mark ix. 48, 44. Again, we 
read: “And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; 
and they have no rest day nor night.” Rey. xiv. 11. “Who shall be 
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his 
raints, and to be admired in all them that believe . . . in that day.” 2 
Thess. i. 9,10. Here the apostle is speaking of the second coming of 
Christ. In that day, he informs us, all “that obey not the gospel” 
(and, of course, throughout all the period of the gospel dispensation) 
are then to “be punished.” Is that punishment in this life? To ask 
the question is enough. If that be not punishment,-to the great mass 
of gospel rejectors, long after this life, then there is no meaning in 
words. But if so, then Universalism is false. But what kind of pun- 
ishment is this? How long will it endure? The Bible says, “pun- 
ished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.” It inti- 
mates no end to the punishment. Those thus sentenced can never be 
redeemed from hell, and brought into the enjoyment of happiness in 
the presence of the Lord in heaven. Their punishment is not only 
“everlasting,” but it is “from the presence of the Lord.” 

St. Jude informs us that to the wicked “is reserved the blackness of 
darkness forever.” Jude 13. Again, we read: “And the devil that 
deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the 
beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night 


Oh. xii.) FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 525 
forever and ever.” Rey. xx. 10. Again, our Lord says: “Wherefore I 
say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto 
men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven 
unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it 
shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, 
it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world 
to come.” Matt. xii. 31, 32. St. Luke makes a similar record of the 
Saviour’s words. In Mark, the language, if possible, is still stronger: 
“Verily I say unto you, all sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, 
and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but he that 
shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but. is 
in danger of eternal damnation.” Mark iii. 28, 29. 

According to the language of our Saviour, the sin against the Holy 
Ghost, here referred to, is absolutely unpardonable. Hence it is impos 
sible that sinners of this class can escape from punishment, and enter 
heaven. They are doomed to eternal guilt; and the oath of God pro- 
claims that he will “by no means clear the guilty.” And this pollu- 
tion of guilt which can never be washed away, will be an immovable 
barrier against their entrance into heaven; for our Saviour asserts that 
“there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither 
whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are 
written in the Lamb’s book of life.” The fact here declared, that the 
sin against the Holy Ghost can be forgiven “neither in this world, 
neither in the world to come,” shows conclusively that the salvation of 
such is utterly hopeless, both for time and eternity; and consequently is 
an unanswerable refutation of the dogma of Universalism. Again, 
sinners of this class are said by our Lord to be “in danger of eternal 
damnation.” The terms used, aiwviov kpioews, imply judgment, or con- 
demnation, of everlasting, or eternal duration ; hence all hope of salvation 
to this class of sinners must perish forever, and with it must perish the 
last vestige of Universalist delusion. - 

“Woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had 
been good for that man if he had not been born.” Matt. xxvi. 24. If 
all men go immediately into eternal happiness at death, (as Universal- 
ism teaches,) or if, after a limited period of suffering, they shall enter 
into an eternal state of happiness, (as Restorationists affirm,) how can it 
be said in truth concerning any man, “it had been good for that man 
if he had not been born?” Surely an eternity of bliss would more than 
counterbalance a limited period of suffering! 

We present one passage more on this subject: “And these shall go 
away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal’ 


526 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pires.G 


Matt. xxv. 46. It is utterly impossible, by any evasion or artifice, to 
set aside the proof contained in this passage, that the future punishment 
of the wicked will be endless. It is admitted by Universalism, in all 
its protean phases, that the happiness of the righteous will be endless. 
And this they have no difficulty whatever in proving by Scripture. 
But we confidently assert that the eternal happiness of the righteous is 
in no place in all the Bible more directly and conclusively set forth 
than in the passage before us. From the judgment of the last day, the 
righteous are to go “into life eternal.” It is plain as any thing can be, 
that if this text affirms the eternity of future happiness, it also affirms 
the eternity of future punishment. That it affirms the former, Univer- 
salists are compelled to admit. That it proves the latter, they stub- 
bornly deny. And yet it is obvious that the one is as plainly taught as 
the other. Indeed, Universalists, in contending that the happiness of 
the righteous will be endless, and denying the endless punishment of the 
wicked, do contradict themselves, and “ prevaricate most pitifully.” 
In the text under review, the same word is used in reference to the 
duration of the punishment of the wicked, and the happiness of the 
righteous. The word is al@vov, in both instances, meaning duration 
without end. If the one is endless, so is the other. To contend other- 
wise, is not only to contradict the obvious meaning of the text, but to 
involve ourselves in the most ridiculous inconsistency and self-contra- 
diction. We know it is contended that the terms rendered “ eternal,” 
“everlasting,” “ forever,” and “ forever and ever,” are used in Scripture 
in reference to limited duration. But we reply, that in all such cases, 
the context and nature of the subject render the limited sense so 
apparent that there can be no danger of misapprehension. But in ref- 
erence to the future punishment of the wicked, the context, the nature 
of the subject, and the entire ienor of Scripture, are obviously against 
the limited construction. Numerous other Scripture proofs of the end- 
less duration of the future punishment of the wicked might be adduced, 
but more are needless. If the passages given do not, to our minds, estab- 
lish conclusively the position, we would not “be persuaded, though one 
rose from the dead.” 

2. Serious difficulties pertaining to any theory which rejects the doctrine 
of the endless punishment of the wicked. 

The theory of materialism, which denies the conscious existence of 
the soul separate from the body, between death and the resurrection, 
having been sufficiently refuted in a preceding chapter, needs no farther 
notice in this convection. 

The wild notion of annihilationism, or destructionism, will require 


Oh. xii.) FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 527 


but a brief consideration. The abettors of this theory hold that the 
wicked, after the resurrection, will be sentenced to suffer the full penalty 
of their sins, but that their actual sufferings will be only temporary, 
after which, as the completion of the penalty, they shall be driven into 
total annihilation. 

The first objection to this theory is, its utter inability to produce any 
support from Scripture. The second objection is, its antagonism to the 
principles of human philosophy, so far as these principles can bear upon 
a subject of this nature. For it is most certain that we haze no e7i- 
dence that the least particle of created substance, whether material or 
immaterial, has ever been annihilated since the original creative fiat 
called it into being. And it is very sure that no power short of Omnip- 
otence can hurl back into nonentity any thing that God has made. 
Since, therefore, we have no evidence that God ever has annihilated 
any portion of his creation, and since no power but his own is capable 
of annihilating a single atom of existence, and since God has nowhere 
told us that he would ever exert his power in unmaking any thing he 
has made, therefore to suppose that he will ever annihilate the souls 
and bodies of a portion of mankind, is most unphilosophical. 

That the term death ever means annihilation, is a position which 
cannot be proved. Indeed, to suppose that such is its import, would 
involve us in absurdity at every step, and reduce the Scriptures to sense- 
less jargon. In reference, for instance, to the original penalty of the 
law, how absurd to suppose it to imply, “In the day thou eatest thereof, 
thou shalt surely die”—(be annihilated /) 

But the doctrine of annihilation is flatly contradictory to all those 
scriptures which speak of the punishment of the wicked as a state of 
endless torment; for surely the very conception of torment implies the 
existence of a conscious being to endure it. 

But the largest class of those who reject the doctrine of the endless 
punishment of the wicked, are Universalists. Against the tenets of 
these, whether they be Restorationists, or Universalists proper, besides 
the Scripture proofs already presented, there are the following weighty 
objections: 

(1) Universalism is contrary to the whole Bible scheme of salvation 
through the mediatorial reign of Christ. 

An apostle has informed us that there is no way of salvation but 
through Christ. His words are: “Neither is there salvation in any 
other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men 
whereby we must be saved.” Acts iy. 12. It is also clearly taught in 
Scripture that the offer of Christ through the gospel in this life is final : 


528 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 5. 


and to such as reject him in this world, there is no hope. To them, 
“there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful look- 
ing for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which shall devour the 
adversaries.” Heb. x. 26,27. We are farther told that at the second 
coming of Christ, when he shall raise the dead and judge mankind at 
the end of this world, he will then “deliver up the kingdom to God, 
even the Father;” and that, “when all things shall be subdued unto 
him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all 
things under him, that God may be all in all.” Hence it is clearly set 
forth that the mediatorial reign of Christ will cease after the solemn 
events of the general judgment shall have transpired; and conse- 
quently, to such as reject his gospel here, there can be no salvation 
through him; and as there can be salvation in no other name, their 
ease is forever hopeless. Universalism can furnish them no remedy. 

(2) Universalism contradicts the great truth so abundantly taught in 
Scripture—that salvation is conditional. 

Go where we will, to the Old Testament or the New, we find this 
conditionality staring us in the face. “Jf ye be willing and obedient, ye 
shall eat the good of the land; but 7f ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be 
devoured with the sword.” Isa.i.19,20. “ He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark 
xvi. 16. So we find it throughout the Bible. If salvation be not con- 
ditional, and if it be not true that some, by complying with these con- 
ditions, will be saved, and others, by refusing thus to comply, will be 
lost forever, then the Bible is a book of deception! and God has all 
along, from Genesis to Revelation, been endeavoring to frighten his crea- 
tures with mere bugbears—importuning them to seek, to ask, to knock, 
to run, to strive to enter into rest, when he knew all the while that all 
men were sure of salvation, whether they seek, ask, knock, run, strive, 
pray, believe, obey, or not! And yet this is Universalism! Shall we 
attribute such duplicity, such monstrous hypocrisy, to the Holy One 
God forbid! Yea, “Jet God be true, and every man a liar!” 

(3) Universalism overturns the whole scheme of salvation through 
the amazing love and mercy of God. 

For if the platform of Universalism be sound, then all that we read 
of “God’s great love of pity,” in sending his Son into the world to die 
for sinners, is mere rhetorical flourish—worse, it is but ostentatious 
parade of pity, where no pity was needed; of grace and pardon, to such 
as could suffer nothing for the lack of either! For if Universalism be 
true, all must have been saved just as certainly without the advent, 
sufferings, death, resurrection, and intercession of Christ, yea, and the 


Ch, xlii.J FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 52Y 


gift and influences of the Holy Ghost, as with them. Universalism 
reduces all these sublime and glorious exhibitions of the love of God 
the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, to solemn nothings. 
For, according to the great corner-stone of that system, the attributes 
of God would forever forbid his punishing his creatures in another 
world for sins committed in this; and as to their sufferings here, these 
must be in exact accordance with the demands of justice, neither more 
nor less, on account of any thing Christ has done. According to this 
theory, there is no room for the forgiveness of sins; for all men must 
suffer the penalty due their sins in this life; and God is bound, in jus- 
tice, to secure the eternal salvation of all, so soon as they leave this 
world, ; 

According to this system, which teaches universal and uncondi- 
tional salvation to all men, so soon as they enter upon the future 
state, whether they be good, or whether they be bad, then we may say: 
“Happy were ye, O ye wicked antediluvians! God mercifully rewarded 
you far above righteous Noah; for he sent the flood to release you 
kindly from all your sufferings, and to furnish you a triumphant pass- 
port to heaven, leaving that righteous man longer to buffet the storms!” 
“Happy, O ye inhabitants of Sodom! For God sent upon you a rain 
of fire and brimstone, but it was only that you might the sooner spread 
the glad wing of immortality, and mounting above the sulphureous 
blaze, enter the mansions of endless bliss!” Look, also, at the judg- 
ment of God on Ananias and Sapphira. They had committed the sin of 
lying to the Holy Ghost; but, according to Universalism, they are 
rewarded with an instantaneous transit from a world of trouble to the 
mansions of glory. 

(4) Once more: Universalism subverts the whole scheme of salvation. 

If, as Universalism teaches, the attributes of God will not admit of 
his punishing sinners in the future world for sins committed in this 
world, and if, as that theory farther teaches, all men are punished in 
this life for all the sins they commit, then, we demand, how can Christ 
save them from their sins, in any way whatever? He cannot save 
them from their sins in tis life, for they suffer the fufl penalty they 
Jeserve, to the last jot and tittle. He cannot save them from future 
punishment, for of that they were never in any danger. From what, 
then, we ask, according to the teachings of Universalism, does Christ 
save the sinner? The only reply, so far as we can see, which the abet- 
tors of that theory can make, or which, so far as we know, they have 
ever pretended to make, to this question, is this: they allege that Cnrist 
saves the sinner-from his sins, only by the influence of his teachings 

34 


530 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B.b 
and exan p-e in preventing him from committing sin. And this alone 
is all the salvation which that system has to offer the sinner. Accord- 
ing to this, Christ is the Saviour of sinners in the same sense in which 
are Paul and Peter, and James and John, and Luther and Wesley, 
and Baxter and Whitefield, and every good man that ever lived. For 
all these have wielded a persuasive influence for good over the conduct 
of others. 

Again, according to this notion, Christ does not save sinners fron 
their actual sins at all. He only saves them from the sins they have 
not committed, which, of course, cannot be their sins, till they actually 
commit them. Consequently he cannot, in any proper sense, save them 
from their sins at all. He only saves them from imaginary sins that 
never had an actual existence; consequently he is only an imaginary 
Saviour; and of infants, a Saviour in no sense! 

The gospel speaks of the remission of sins past—‘Whom God hath 
set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his 
righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the for- 
bearance of God.” Rom. iii. 25. But in what sense, according to Uni- 
versalism, are past sins remitted, through faith in the blood of Christ? 
They cannot be remitted in the sense of release from punishment, either 
in this life or the next; for in this life they must suffer for them the 
full penalty of the law; and they were never in danger of being pun- 
ished for them in the life to come. Nor can Christ save them from 
their sins in the sense of prevention, for they have actually taken place; 
so that we can see no possible way in which, according to the Univer- 
salist scheme, Christ can save sinners from their past sins. But as this 
salvation is plainly taught in Scripture, it follows that Universalism is 
subversive of the gospel plan of salvation from sin. 

From all which it follows, that as Universalism, in all its phases, is 
contrary to the express teachings of Scripture; as it is inconsistent with 
the whole Bible scheme of salvation through the mediatorial reign of 
Christ; as it contradicts the great truth, so abundantly taught in Serip- 
ture, that salvation is condiiional; as it overturns the whole scheme of 
salvation through the amazing love and mercy of God; and as it is sub 
versive of the whole scheme of salvation itself—from all these consider- 
ations, we conclude that it is so directly antagonistic to the doctrines of 
Christ and his apostles, as to be essentially “another gospel ;” and not 
that glorious system of salvation from sin through the atoning blood of 
Christ, received “through faith in his name.” Hence, as all these 
kindred theories, antagonistic to the doctrine of the endless punishment 
of the wicked in a future state, are seen to be fallacious, we may safely 


Ch. xlii.] 


FUTURE PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED. 


531 


conclude that not only the justice, but all the attributes, of God, will 
harmonize in the sentence of endless punishment upon all who finally 


reject the offer of eternal life. 


QUESTIONS ON 


If ie 1. Should the scriptures de- 
scribing future punishment be con- 
strued literally or figuratively ? 

. If figuratively, are the figures strong- 

er than the reality? 
3. What scriptures prove that future 
punishment implies the infliction of 

ye pain by an external agency ¢ 
What scriptures prove that it implies 
banishment to a place of outer dark- 
ness? 

5. What scriptures prove that it implies 
a state of deep distress and an- 
guish ? 

b. In what scripture is it called the 
second death? 

. What is implied in banishment from 
God and all that ts good! 

8. What scriptures prove that it implies 
the outpouring of the wrath of 
God? 

9. What is the theory of Materialism ? 


<p 


CHAPTER XLII. 


10. 


He, 


12. 


13. 


14. 


15. 


16. 


Of Destructionism? Of Univer 
salism? Of Restorationism? 


What is the correct doctrine on the 
subject ? 

What scriptures are adduced to 
prove it? 


What objections are offered against 
the annihilation theory? 

How is it shown that Universalism 
is contrary to the scheme of salva- 
tion through the mediation of 
Christ ? 

How is it proved that it is inconsist-— w— 
ent with the conditionality of sal® 
vation? 

How is it proved that it is contrary 
to salvation through the love and 
mercy of God? 

How is it proved that it is inccnsist- 
ent with the idea of salvation from 
past sins, cr salvation tm any 
sense? 


Le 
(be 


L— 


§82 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. B. 6 


CHAPTER XLIII. 


FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS. 


OUR most exaited conceptions of that felicity which awaits the people 
of God beyond the boundaries of time must be faint and inadequate. 
St. John says: “It doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know 
that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him 
as he is.” 1 John iii. 2, St. Paul asserts: “Eye hath not seen, nor car 
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which 
God hath prepared for them that love him.” 1 Cor. ii. 9. On this sub- 
ject the pen of inspiration hath used language the most glowing and 
impressive ; yet the most vivid descriptions, and the most sublime meta- 
phors of Holy Writ, are but feeble adumbrations of the ecstatic glories 
of the heavenly state. These representations furnish us no very definite 
information as to the nature of the heavenly felicity; yet they contain 
some vivid descriptions of its sources. Hence the most we can do on 
the subject, unless we launch forth on the sea of conjecture, is to con- 
sider these sources so far as they are revealed in the Bible. 

I. Character of the FINAL HOME of the saints. 

1. It is a local habitation, or a place. Some have supposed that the 
Bible descriptions of heaven are not intended to teach that the future 
home of the redeemed will be any particular locality or place, but 
merely a state of blessedness, having no reference to special locality ; 
but this hypothesis is manifestly inconsistent with our Saviour’s explicit 
teaching. He says: “In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it 
were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you 
And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive 
you unto myself; that where Iam, there ye may be also.” John xiv. 2,3 
The notion referred to is also contrary to the prima facie evidence and 
general tenor of Scripture. The Bible everywhere speaks of heaven, 
not only as a state, but also as a place. Angels are represented as 
descending from heaven to earth, and ascending again to heaven. The 
Son of man is said to have “come from heaven” to our world, and again 
te have “ascended into heaven, where he was before.” Such expressions 


Ch. xliii.] FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS, 533 


as these, with which the Bible is replete, can only be consistently inter- 
preted upon the supposition that heaven is a place. 

Agaiu, that heaven is a place, as well as a state, is demonstrated by 
the fact that it is now the abode of the glorified humanity of our Sa- 
viour, and will ultimately contain the risen bodies of all the saints. It 
is impossible for us tc form any conception of a body, however refined, 
without locating it ir some portion of space. That which is composed 
of a body cannot be omnipresent, and that which is not omnipresent, 
must exist in a particular located place. Hence it follows—as the bodies 
of all the redeemed are to be assembled together, in company with the 
glorified body of our Lord, “that where he is, there they may be also” — 
that the heavenly mansion in which they are thus to be assembled must 
be a located habitation. | 

We must not, however, infer that, because heaven is a place, it is not 
also a state. It is, doubtless, both the one and the other. However 
glorious the external habitation, it could be no heaven to the occupant 
without the proper condition of heart. In one sense of the word, wher- 
ever God dwells in the heart, manifesting his love and revealing his 
glory, there is heaven. In this sense it may be said, “The way to 
heaven is heaven all the way ;” and the poet has said— 


“Tis heaven to rest in thine embrace, 
And nowhere else but there.” 


Yet, as the Scriptures have plainly revealed the fact that heaven 
is a place, the admission that it is also a state, can have no tendency 
with the believer in revelation to weaken his confidence in the teach- 
ings of the Bible. That heaven is both a place and a. state, implies 
no contradiction. The two positions are perfectly consistent with each 
other. 

2. Heaven is a glorious habitation. 

St. John, in his visions in Patmos, had a view of this habitation, 
which he describes as a magnificent city: “And I John saw the holy 
city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared 
as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of 
heaven, saying, Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will 
dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall 
be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears 
from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor 
crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are 
passed away.” 


He proceeds to describe the city, thus: “ Her light was like unto s 


534 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Psigbo& 


stone most precious, even like a jasper-stone, clear as crystal; and (the 
city) had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates 
twelve angels, and the names written thereon, which are the names of 
the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: on the east three gates; on 
the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three 
gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them 
the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. And he that talked 
with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, 
and the wall thereof. And the city lieth four square, and the length is 
as large as the breadth; and he measured the city with the reed, twelve 
thousand furlongs. The length, and the breadth, and the height of it, 
are equal, And he measured the wall thereof, a hundred and forty and 
four cubits, according to the measure of a man—that is, of the angel. 
And the building of the wall of it was of jasper; and the city was pure 
gold, like unto clear glass. And the foundations of the wall of the 
city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foun- 
dation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the 
fourth, an emerald; the fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, 
chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chryso- 
prasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. And the 
twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl ; 
and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 
And I saw no temple therein; for the Lord God Almighty, and the 
Lamb, are the temple of it. And the city had no need of the sun, 
neither of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God did lighten it, 
and the Lamb is the light thereof. And the nations of them which are 
saved, shall walk in the light of it; and the kings of the earth do 
bring their glory and honor into it. And the gates of it shall not be 
shut at all by day; for there shall be no night there. And they shall 
bring the glory and honor of the nations into it. And there shall in 
no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh 
abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lambh’s 
book of life. And he showed me a pure river of the water of life, 
clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and the Lamb 
In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there 
the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her 
fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of 
the nations. And there shall be no more curse; but the throne of God 
and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him; and 
they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads, And 
there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of 


Cn. xlin., FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS. 535 


the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light; and they shall reign for. 
ever and ever.” 

We are aware that some commentators understand all this magnifi- 
cent description of the heavenly Jerusalem, in the last two chapters of 
Revelation, as referring to the prosperity of the gospel Church on 
earth. It perhaps does refer to the gospel Church in this world, in 
one sense—so far as if is a type of heavenly salvation and glory. Some 
expressions in the description seem clearly to require this interpretation. 
Such are the following: “The kings of the earth do bring their glory 
and honor into it.” “And they shall bring the glory and honor of the 
nations into it.” {. is difficult to see how these passages can refer to 
the heavenly s*. .e. 

But there are other passages in the connection which admit of no 
consistent interpretation, if applied only to the Church on earth. It 
ia said, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall 
be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any 
more pain; for the former things are passed away.” Now it seems to 
us rather to pervert than to explain the inspired word, to assert that a 
state in which all tears, all sorrow, all pain, and all death, are to be 
done away, is to be expected this side the heavenly mansions. Again, 
into that city nothing unholy is to enter, but only “they which are writ- 
ten in the Lamb’s book of life.” Can any thing like this be character- 
istic of the Church on earth? Once more: in that “holy Jerusalem” 
there is to be “no more curse”—there they shall see the face of the 
Lamb; there “they need no candle, neither light of the sun;” “and 
they shall reign forever and ever.” If these descriptions do not refer 
to the heavenly state, then we may explain away every promise of the 
Bible, and destroy forever the hope of the Christian! 

Dr. Clarke’s comment on the scripture before us is somewhat remark- 
able. On the second verse of the twenty-first chapter, he says: “New 
Jerusalem.—This doubtless means the Christian Church in a state of 
great prosperity and purity.” But, in commenting on the fourth verse, 
he applies the declaration, “there shall be no more death,” to a state 
subsequent to the resurrection: thus passing with rapid facility from the 
Church on earth to the Church in heaven. 

The true interpretation of the three concluding chapters of Revela- 
tion, we think to be this: In the preceding part of Revelation a pro- 
phetic sketch had been given of the history of the Church to the com- 
mencement of Christ’s millennial reign. In the last three chapters the 
millennial reign of Christ, the solemn events of the resurrection, the 
geueral judgment, and the glories of the future state, are depicted. As 


536 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1 3.5 


the millennial reign of Christ with his saints on earth will precede, and 
is typical of, his triumphant reign with them in the heavenly stat.. and 
as some things connected with this description of “the holy city, New 
Jerusalem,” apply more properly to the millennial state of the Church, 
and some can only apply to the heavenly state, the most rational infer- 
ence is, that both these states are included. 

The burden of this description unquestionably relates to the heaycaly 
state; yet, as both the millennial and heavenly glory are connected 
with the mediatorial reign of Christ, the one unfolding its greatest tri- 
umphs in this world and the other revealing its final issues in the world 
to come, it is but natural that the description of both should be some- 
what blended. The triumphs of Christ’s mediatorial reign on earth, 
and its rewards in heaven, are, in an important sense, one. The saints 
on earth and the saints in glory are all the purchase of his blood. 
And as “the kings and nations of the earth” shall “bring their glory 
and honor” into the Church militant, denoting its great prosperity in 
this world, so “the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the 
light” of the “holy Jerusalem” above, where the light of sun and 
moon will never be needed, and where sin and sorrow, pain and death, 
can never enter. 

In an important sense, it is the same “ holy Jerusalem,” whether here 
on earth in her militant state, battling with tempest and storm, and 
fleeing to caves and dens of the earth from the rage of persecution, or 
in heaven, where the saints, having, like their Master, been “ made per- 
fect through suffering,” and having “washed their robes and made them 
white in the blood of the Lamb, shall be saved from sin and all its 
consequences “ forever and ever.” Here they oft have no certain dwel!- 
ing-place, being “strangers and pilgrims on earth,” but there they shall 
inherit “many mansions” in that “holy city” whose twelve foundations 
are garnished with chrysolite, beryl, topaz, amethyst, and all manner 
of precious stones; whose gates are of pearl; whose streets are gold, 
transparent as glass; and whose walls are of jasper. 

But the question is often asked: Are these descriptions figurative, or 
are they literal? It is generally assumed that they are figurative. Per- 
haps they are. But we dare not affirm that they are entirely so. The 
human body, in the resurrection, will be the identical body that we have 
here; yet it will be changed into a “spiritual body ;” it will be “ fash- 
ioned like unto Christ’s glorious body:” even so, for aught we know. 
when the “new heaven and the new earth” shall be created, God may 
produce new substances of gold and precious stones, so refined and 
spiritualized, that they will as far transcend those metals, as known ow 


Uh. shii | FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS. 531 


earth, as will the spiritual bodies of the saints the “vile bodies” they 
now possess. And if this be correct, (and who can say that it is not?) 
then the descriptions here given of the magnificent city which shall be 
the final habitation of the people of God may be different from the 
literal acceptation only in so far as the spiritual gold and _ precious 
stones, and rivers, and trees, of the celestial world, shall excel in beauty, 
magnificence, and purity, those substances of earth; just as the vile 
body of the saint on earth shall be excelled by that body which shall 
rise from the tomb, with all the undying energies and unfading beauties 
of immortality. But if we conclude that these descriptions are entirely 
figurative, then we are bound to infer that all these glowing descriptions 
must come far short of imparting a full conception of the glorious 
reality. 

Bui in what part of God’s vast universe is the heavenly abode of the 
saints located? On this question, God has not seen proper to gratify 
the curiosity of man. The general Scripture presentation is, that 
heaven is far above us. But what meaning shall we attach to the term 
“above” in this connection? In reference to our own planet, down 
means toward the earth’s center, and up means in the opposite direction. 
Thus, to our antipodes, wp and down are the very opposite of what they 
are to us. Hence, so far as such terms are controlled in their import 
by the earth’s attraction, they can impart no light as to the location of 
heaven. 

Another point fully expressed in Scripture is, that heaven is immensely 
distant from us. God says: “I dwell in the high and holy place.” 
Isa. lvii. 15. “As the heaven is high above the earth.” Ps. ciii. 11. 
“The heaven for height . . . is unsearchable.” Prov. xxv. iii. St. Paul 
speaks of Christ having “ascended up far above all heavens”—that is, 
beyond the bounds of sun, moon, and stars—all the visible heavens. 
Hence the Scriptures teach, first, that heaven is above us; and, secondly, 
that it is beyond the bounds of the visible heavens. 

Astronomy teaches: that our system, of which the sun is the center, 
is but one of an almost infinite number of systems scattered through 
the immensity of space; that each fixed star is a sun and center to a 
system perhaps as extended as ours; and that, far beyond the reach of 
the strongest telescope, suns and systems innumerable shine forth under 
the eye and control of the Eternal. Now, the “heaven of heavens”— 
the throne of God, and the eternal abode of holy angels, and of the 
redeemed saints—must be above all these visible heavens and systems 
of worlds. Far, far beyond the bounds of those orbs on which the 
astronomer of earth may gaze, in the grand center of light and per. 


538 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i B.8 


fection, in an atmosphere purer and more spiritual than ever sur- 
rounded globe or world, is, doubtless, the lofty pavilion of God. 
Here, in the far-off center of the universe, as the great, great central 
point, we may suppose is the throne of God. Here, amid surrounding 
worlds, and systems, and nebule, the great Creator of all sits upon his 
throne, “high and lifted up,” wheeling the spheres in their orbits, and 
swaying his scepter over innumerable worlds of intelligent beings And 
here, in a manner to us incomprehensible, he is “ over all, God blessed 
forever.” And here is that glorious and eternal habitation where the 
Son shares with the Father “the glory which he had with him before 
the world was;” and here, also, is the blessed home of “the saints in 
light,” where they shall dwell with the Saviour, beholding his glory for- 
evermore. 

II. The saints in heaven will have been saved from all evil. 

1. From all intellectual evil of ignorance. We are not, however, to 
understand that they are to be absolutely perfect in knowledge. This 
belongs to God alone. But they shall not be conscious of any such 
defect in knowledge as would interrupt their happiness. And, doubt- 
less, the pursuit of knowledge, unimpeded by the clogs of mortality, 
will constitute a part of the employment, and greatly contribute to the 
happiness, of the “spirits of just men made perfect.” This, we think, 
is more than intimated by the apostle, when he says: “We know in 
part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, 
then that which is in part shall be done away.” From this language 
we gather the pleasing hope, that when the last accession of truth is 
made here on earth, we are not to die and leave it all behind, but it 
shall accompany us to the future world; and where the pursuit has 
been dropped here, for the want of time or ability to conduct it farther, 
it shall be resumed there with renewed and immortalized powers; 
where the body will not weary, nor the powers of the mind wax feeble, 
but where all our faculties shall bloom in the freshness of immortal 
youth, and ripen forever under the beams of heavenly illumination. 

2. The moral evil of sin shall not enter heaven. Nothing unholy can 
enter there to disturb the peace of the saints. “There the wicked cease 
from. troubling, and there the weary be at rest.” Job iii. 17. Sin has 
caused all the evil in the world. The saints of the most high God, 
however pure and holy in heart and life themselves, in all ages, have 
been annoyed by the wickedness of those around them. Righteous Lot 
was “vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked” inhabitants of 
Sodom and Gomorrah. In this world of sin, the faithful have ever 
“had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings; yea, moreover, of bonds 


Ch. xliii.] FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THB RIGHTEOUS. 539 


and imprisonment;” they have been “stoned, sawn asunder, tempted, 
slain with the sword; they have wanderea avout in sheep-skins and 
goat-skins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented.” But in heaven the 
tongue of slander, or of profanity, shall never be heard; the rumor 
of outrage, of wrong, of oppression, or of war, shall never pain the ear, 
the sword of persecution shall never drink the blood of the saints, nor 
shall they any more be “ killed all the day long, or accounted as sheep 
for the slaughter.” . 

3. In heaven, the penal consequences of sin—weariness, toil, affliction, 
pain, and death—will be unknown. In Isa. xxxv. 10, we read: “And 
the ransomed of the Lord shall return aud come to Zion with songs and 
everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, 
and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.” In reference to the redeemed, 
it is written: “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and 
have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the 
Lamb. . . . They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither 
shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in 
the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living 
fountains of waters; and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” 
Rev. xxi. 8, 4: “And I heard a great voice out of heaven, saying, 
Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, 
and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: 
and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither 
shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away.” 

III. In the heavenly state, the assocraTions of the saints will be a 
source of unspeake ble happiness. 

1. Angels will be ‘heir familiar companions. “ But ye are come.” saith 
the apostle, “unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the 
heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the 
general assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written in 
heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men 
made perfect.” Heb. xii. 22, 23. 

2. They will share the society of the pious of all ages and all countries. 

There they “shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down 
with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” 
Matt. viii. 11. They shall hold converse with “ prophets and righteous 
men” of olden time. They shall listen to the orations of Enoch and 
Elijah, of Abraham and Job, of Moses and Samuel, of David and 
Isaiah, of Daniel and Ezekiel, of Peter and James, of Paul and John, 
If a few moments on Mount Tabor, where Moses and Elijaa talked 
with Jesus, so entranced the apostles, with what thrilling emot “as must 


540 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.i. Boo 


the souls of the redeemed be inspired, when on the eternal mount_on 
high they shall listen to the sublime strains in which so many eloquent 
and immortal tongues shall comment on the stupendous wonders of 
redemption ! 

3. But the saints in that glorified state shall mingle with add their 
loved ones of earth who have died in the faith. 

But will those who have been acquainted in this world recognize 
each other in heaven? The plain inference from Scripture is, that they 
will. “Then shall I know,” saith the apostle, “even as also I am 
known.” 1 Cor, xiii. 12. The supposition, that in heaven we will know 
les: than we do in this world, is contrary to the tenor of Scripture. 
Even the rich man in hell recognized “Abraham afar off, and Lazarus 
in his bosom.” Indeed, the inference from the Bible is, that in the 
heavenly state, by an intuitive perception, of which we can here form 
no idea, we shall even recognize those whom we have never seen in the 
flesh. Not only did the rich man referred to recognize Abraham and 
Lazarus, but the apostles, on the mount of transfiguration, recognized 
Moses and Elijah, whom they had never before seen. Surely, then, 
although “in heaven they neither marry nor are given in marriage” — 
domestic relations not being there perpetuated—yet, “when that which 
is perfect is come,” and “that which is in part shall be done away,” 
then our knowledge shall be wonderfully increased. And how must it 
swell the hearts of dearest kindred, and “true yoke-fellows” in the 
“kingdom and patience of Jesus,” to hail each other happy in that 
bright world of bliss and glory! 

How must the heart of Jacob have exulted with joy when he once 
more met his beloved Joseph, for whom he had mourned as dead! 
After the long, fond embrace, was over, “Israel said unto Joseph, Now 
let me die, since I have seen thy face, because thou art yet alive.” And 
what ineffable joy must have filled the heart of the father of the 
prodigal son, when he met him after his return, and, falling on his 
ueck, kissed him! But what are these instances of emotion compared 
with the reunion of nearest and dearest relatives and friends in the vast 
assemblage aroun the throne! 

4, But, above ail, Jesus hianself will be there, known unto all his re- 
deemed. There shall they “see him as he is,” in all the splendor of his 
glorified humanity. Without a dimming veil, they shall “see the King 
in his beauty,” and, casting their crowns before the throne, they shall 
lift the voice of praise, saying, “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive 
glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for 
thy pleasure they are and were created.” 


Ch xliii.] FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THh RIGHTEOUS. 4] 


IV. Another source of happiness in heaven, will be the EMPLOYMENT 
of the saints. Of this, our largest conceptions must be imperfect. 

1, One important exercise will be the worship of God and the Lamb. 
Long ago, St. John had a vision of the heavenly worshipers. He heard 
them crying out, “ Holy, holy, holy, Lord-God Almighty, which was, and 
is, and is to come,” and giving “honor and thanks to him that sat on 
the throne, who liveth forever and ever.” He heard the “four and 
twenty elders” singing before the throne a “new song, saying, Thou ar! 
worthy to take the book and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast 
slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, 
and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God 
kings and priests ;” and joining the swelling strain, he heard the voice 
of many angels—the number of them being “ten thousand times ten 
thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, Wor- 
thy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, 
and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature 
which is in heaven, and on the earth, and-under the earth, and such as 
are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard he saying, Blessing, and 
honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, 
and unto the Lamb, forever and ever.” And again, he saw “a hundred 
and forty and four thousand,” with the “ Father’s name written in their 
foreheads:” he “heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps ;” 
and they sung “a new song,” which “no man could learn” but “the 
hundred and forty and four thousand which were redeemed from the 
earth.” (Rev.) Such are some of the Bible pictures of the worship 
performed in heaven. In this, the company of the redeemed will par- 
ticipate. 

2, But we may rationally infer that there will be a pleasing variety 
iw the employment of the saints in glory. Another interesting part of 
the exercise will be, to behold and admire the glories of heaven. Jesus 
said: “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with 
me where I am, that they may behold my glory.” What sublime revela- 
tions will there be made of the unutterable glory of the Redeemer! 
Theve may be learned some of those things which St. Paul referred to 
as unlawful to be uttered on earth. But the Lamb shall lead his ran- 
somed millions over all the celestial fields of immortality, and unfold to 
their vision the riches and glory of his eternal kingdom. 

Nor are we to suppose that the saints will be restricted to the precincts 
of the heavenly mansions. As the vast universe is the dominion of 
Christ, “all things” being “made by him, and for him,” so we may 
infer, that as the holy angels now “desire to look into” the redeeming 


542 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PitBiB 


work of Christ on earth, so will the glorified saints be interested through- 
out all the dominions of God. The study of the divine administration 
throughout distant worlds, as well as the ever-unfolding glory of God 
in redemption’s wondrous plan, will be enough to employ the thoughts, 
to warm the hearts, and to swell the joys, of the saints forever and ever. 

V. Character and degree of their enjoyment. 

In the present mode of our being, we can have but a faint conception 
of that capacity for enjoyment which our immortalized natures will 
possess. If the change upon the mental is to equal that upon the bodily 
powers, and the glorified body of the Redeemer is the model after which 
the bodies of the saints are to be fashioned, how wonderful must be the 
capacity for enjoyment possessed by the saints in glory! With a spir- 
itual body, how keen and far-reaching must be the glance of the eye, 
how delicate and appreciative the faculty for hearing, how exquisite 
the powers of taste, how capacious the intellect restored from the 
curse of sin, how enlarged must be the capacity for deriving happi- 
ness from all that can attract the eye or charm the ear, illume the 
mind or delight the fancy, kindle the imagination or enrapture the 
affections!’ And we may rationally indulge the pleasing hope, that all 
these capacious powers, as the cycles of eternity shall roll, will be ever 
enlarging and ever increasing in their capacity for imparting to the 
undying nature, still sweeter, richer, purer streams of bliss. 

The crowning excellency in the bliss of heaven is, that it shall fea: 
no termination. On earth, how quickly the most attractive beauty fades, 
the sweetest pleasure dies, and the fondest hopes are withered; but in 
heaven, the sun of peace, and joy, and love, and bliss, shall never set. 
Spring shall bloom with unfading beauty, love shall glow with increas- 
ing warmth, and the stream of bliss shall flow forever. 

We have only glanced at a few of the “ exceeding great and precious 
promises” of God, in reference to the future happiness of the saints. 
But how little do we know upon that subject! That it will be a state 
of bliss beyond the power of language to describe, none can doubt. 
The Bible, as we have seen, uses the most striking figures to describe it ; 
but, at the same time, most clearly intimates that the subject is “too 
wonderful” for our conception. But, for the encouragement of our faith 
and hope, we may be assured that when “death shall be swallowed up 
of life,” the saints will be possessed of all that is essential to their hap- 
piness. They shall dwell amid “ pleasures forevermore.” Free from 
sorrow and death, they shall mingle with the celestial throng around 
the throne of the Eternal. And while the pure light of heaven shall 
pour upon their immortal intellects, they shall feast forever upon the 


Ch. xiii. FUTURE HAPPINESS OF THE RIGHTEOUS. O43 


sublime mysteries of providence and grace, and kindle with holy rap- 
ture as they contemplate the unfolding perfections of Him “who is 
above all, and through all, and in them all.” 


‘There shall they muse amid the starry glow, 
Or hear the fiery streams of glory flow; 
Or, on the living cars of lightning driven, 
Triumphant, wheel around the plains of heaven.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XLIII. 


Question 1. How is it proved that|4. I’rom what evils will the saints in ae 
heaven is a place, as well as a heaven be delivered ? 
state? 5. What associations will conduce to ©— 
2. How is it proved that St. John, in their happiness? 
Revelation, in describing the “holy | 6. What employments in heaven will 
Jerusalem,” referred to heaven? ~~ promote their happiness? 


*, Are his descriptions figurative or lit- | 7. What will be the character and degree 
eral? of their enjoyment ? 


os ” it ne 


_ 
’ P ; 4 
- Lae 
: re, « hd 
% as = % “ar hive 66); 
‘ ~ , : "eee | 
: _¢ hare oe Saeed 
a =. e<c*3 Ti é 
P ; fnug . i : . 
: = _ a = al 
apts Lee x4 
! 4 ws ¥ i 
c F 0-74 14a 
= " 
- . ' 
: vf x 
« . a 
Sd Feet -* ; i 
“ \ y “4 a ‘ 2 ae 
a af f 
s - ’ 
: vs a 
1 a a) ev 
a iy : aise 
- 3i* 5 7 
- ae ee = 
Vit eres, 
? = ae 
; a Ps - ‘ - 4 
; : 
& b= a < ’ 
: a. Ps q 5 4 _ ‘ , 
’ “ . : on 
‘a oe ; : . 
‘ 1 445 oad + 
; ; or 
+; } } - 
; te 
i P .. 
4 + or % d ; 
‘ , : ; | 
* ? ’ te _ . _ om 
5 A , - 4 ee ee 


. | 
as : a 
| art yc Tait iret al 


PART II.—EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK L—PREPARATORY EVIDENCE 


CHAPTER I. 


INTRODUCTION — IMPORTANCE OF jan SUBJECT, AND MELrHO] Ob 
INVESTIGATION, 


“T can scarcely think any pains misspent that brings me solid evidence of the 
great truth, that the Scripture is the word of God, which is, indeed, the greal 
Fundamental.”—Bovte. 


Is CHRISTIANITY TRUE, OR Is IT Nor? However this question may 
be decided, it must be acknowledged by every reflecting mind that it is 
an inquiry of the greatest importance. If it be true, it involves conse- 
quences in comparison with which all things else dwindle into insignifi- 
cance. Upon it depends the weal or woe of every accountable intelli- 
gence of the human race, and that not only in this life, but for an 
endless eternity to come. 

If this assumption be correct, which we think none can doubt, it 
necessarily follows that no intelligent person can refuse or neglect to 
bestow upon this great question a careful and serious consideration. To 
ignore or pass by this subject, without calm and honest investigation, 
is to act the part of folly and madness. While there is even a possi- 
bility that Christianity may bé true, it is blindness to our most impor- 
tant interests to fail to use all the means in our power to arrive at a 
satisfactory and correct conclusion on the question. 

“Truth is mighty, and will prevail.” No principle is more general in 
virtuous minds than the love of truth. It is the object of the philoso- 
pher’s most earnest search, and of the Christian’s warmest admiration. 
All sects and parties, whether in philosophy, science, politics, or religion. 

35 (545) 


546 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B.1 


claim to have truth on their side, and do homage at her shrine. But in 
no department of knowledge does the importance of truth become so 
truly great, as in reference to religion. As one has expressed it: “If 
revelation be true, it is tremendously true;” but if it be false, it is a 
gross and unmitigated falsehood—a wicked imposition ! 

In the investigation of truth on this, as on all other subjects, we must 
begin with first principles, and reason upward from what we know to 
what we do not know. Aside from supernatural or divine influence, 
all our knowledge must be derived through the medium of exterrel 
sensation or internal consciousness. By the former, we know that we 
have material bodies, and are surrounded by material objects, and no 
reasoning can strengthen or weaken our conviction on the subject. By 
the latter, we know when we love or hate, are joyful or angry, happy 
or miserable, and no reasoning can change these convictions. 

In discussing the claims of Christianity, we propose to begin with 
such first principles, self-evident truths, or obvious axioms, as none can 
question without renouncing the dictates of common sense, and then to 
argue upward from ony truth to another, as the several links appear to 
hang together in a connected chain. 

Truth itself is a gran? harmonious system, the parts of which, like s 
seamless garment, constitute one united whole, and can only be separ. 
ated by violence. As in mathematical science, the certainty of the 
solution of a problem is only apparent after the several parts of the 
demonstration have been viewed in their separate state, and their neces- 
sary dependence and connection clearly seen; so, in examining the evi- 
dences of Christianity, by beginning at the foundation with first princi- 
ples and admitted truths, and tracing the argument with patience and 
care through its various stages, we shall be conducted, if not to absolute 
mathematical certainty, leaving all doubt impossible, at least to a clear, 
firm, and satisfactory conviction, leaving all doubt unreasonable and 
criminal. 

The evidences of Christianity is a subject exhaustless in its nature 
From the earliest ages of the Christian Church to the present period, 
it has employed the pens of many of the ripest scholars and most pra 
found reasoners, who have bequeathed to the world and the Church 
numerous unanswerable treatises in defense of divine revelation. But 
these writers, while they have occupied similar ground in regard to the 
main arguments, have generally varied in their mode of presenting 
them. Some have attached most importance to one class of arguments, 
and some to another. Some have relied mainly on what are termed the 
seternal evidences, and others on the internal, Perhaps no two anthors 


Ch. i] INTRODUCTION. 547 


have presented precisely the same arguments; and certainly no one ever 
pretended that he had exhausted the theme. Indeed, Christianity is a 
great subject around which cluster an almost infinite number and vari- 
ety of proofs. Arguments in its favor, and many of them of great 
force, may be drawn from almost every page of the Bibie, as well as 
from every chapter in the history of the world and of the Church, and 
from every day’s experience of every saint and of every sinner. The 
developments of each revolving day, by the presentation of accumu- 
lating evidence of the conformity of the character and wants of man 
to the statements of the Bible, and of the continued fulfillment of 
prophecy, but add to the ever-swelling amount of testimony, that Chris- 
tianity is true. Hence it is obvious, notwithstanding the much that has 
been written upon the subject, that all the evidences of Christianity have 
never been presented. 

While it is true that the range of argument on this subject is so 
vastly extensive, it must also be admitted that the leading evidences of 
Christianity are essentially the same in all the treatises of our numer- 
ous and able authors. Therefore but little, in this department, can now 
be presented entirely new. But while the leading argument is substan- 
tially the same in all, there is something in the style and manner of 
each writer variant from that of all others; and this diversity may serve 
a valuable purpose. The phase in which an argument is presented will 
not strike all readers in the same way. An argument, as exhibited by 
one writer, may to many persons seem of little force, while the identi- 
cal argument, presented in the form and dress peculiar to another 
author, may appear very conclusive and satisfactory. 

In the following pages, we do not propose a complete exhibition of 
every thing pertaining to the evidences of Christianity, for the subject 
is so extensive that, instead of a single treatise, volumes would be 
required to present it fully in all its departments and phases. What 
we aim to accomplish is, to furnish a clear, comprehensive, and concise 
view of the leading arguments on the subject, in a form no less com- 
prehensive and satisfactory than the treatises heretofore published, yet 
more simple and perspicuous, and better adapted to the comprehension, 
and more impressive upon the memory of young persons and ordinary 
readers. Our object is, as far as possible, to free the subject from intri- 
cacy and perplexity, and render its examination not only an instructive 
but a pleasing exercise. In a word, our great aim is so to portray the 
important and staple evidences of Christianity that they may be easily 
and clearly comprehended, duly and fully appreciated, and forcibly 
impressed upon the memory and the heart. 


548 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {P. ai. B. 1 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER L 


Qvuxstion 1. What is the great question | 7. Ilave all these authors pursued the 


proposed, and whence arises its par- same plan, or relied mostly on the 

amount importance? same class of arguments? 
2. Whence is all our knowledge derived?} 8. From what great sources may the 
3. What general method is proposed in proofs be derived? 

discussing the subject? 9. Have our leading authors beep 
4. What kind of conclusions may we agreed as to the most important 

arrive at in examining the evidences arguments? 

of Christianity ? 10. In what sense do they mainly differ 
5 Is the subject susceptible of being in their writings? 

exhausted ? 11. What does the author aim to 
8 To what extent, and by what kind accomplish in this investiga 


of authors, has it been treated ? tion? 


Ch. ii.] REVELATION NECESSARY. 549 


CHAPTER II. 


REVELATION NECESSARY TO THE KNOWLEDGE AND WORSHIP OF GOD. 


THe evidences of Christianity may all be properly considered as 
either preparatory or direct. 

We commence with what we term PREPARATORY EVIDENCE. 

This, by some authors, has been considered as partly presumptive evi- 
dence, and partly preliminary. But we prefer to embrace both these 
under the more comprehensive term of preparatory; for it is certain that 
neither the evidence called “presumptive” nor that styled “ prelimina- 
ries” amounts in itself to a proof of the truth of Christianity; but it 
prepares the way for the comprehension and appreciation of that proof: 
hence it is properly preparatory evidence. 

By a divine revelation, we understand, in general terms, a supernat- 
ural communication from God to man of truths not taught by nature, 
and which could not be learned by the mere exercise of reason. This 
will embrace all divine communications, whether directly from God 
himself to the individual, or through the medium of an angel, or some 
person or persons commissioned from God to make known his will to 
others, accompanying the communication with satisfactory evidence of 
their authority. Or, secondly, by divine revelation we understand the 
things contained in the Bible, or the Scriptures of the Old and New 
‘Testament. 

Before entering upon the discussion of this subject, we premise a few 
remarks on the province of reason, in connection with revelation. There 
is danger of error here, in two opposite extremes: in its prerogatives, 
reason may be either too much circumscribed or too far extended. It 
is certainly not only our privilege, but our duty, to exert to their 
utmost capacity our reasoning faculties, in investigating the evidences 
of Christianity. As it is all-important for us to know whether God has 
given us a revelation or not, and as it is by the use of reason alone that 
we can satisfy our own minds on this question, we are culpable, if we 
fail to use our utmost efforts of reason, in the investigation. 

Again, when fully satisfied that God has furnished us a revelatior. 
of his will, we should then exercise all our reasoning powers, availing 


550 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pe B AL 


ourselves of all accessible helps to gain a correct understanding of the 
meaning of that revelation, that we may know what has been revealed. 
But when once satisfied that God has spoken, and that we know what 
he has spoken, reason must then submissively bow to faith; and we 
must rely on God’s word as true, whether we comprehend all its myste- 
ries or not. But we have the consolation to feel assured that, thougk 
many things in revelation are mysteries, and too profound for human 
reason to comprehend, yet there is nothing in the whole compass of 
God’s revelation that is repugnant to the principles of sound reason. 
Apparent discrepancies between divine revelation and human reason, in 
the very nature of things, rast result alone from the fact that our fac- 
ulties are limited and imperfect, and consequently are sometimes unable 
to penetrate so profoundly, or to soar so loftily, as to perceive the perfect 
consistency of sound reason with the sublime revelations of Heaven. 

In entering upon the discussion of the evidences of Christianity, the 
Christian occupies obvious vantage-ground. The prima facie evidence 
is in favor of revelation. This appears, not only from the great anti- 
quity of the Scriptures, and the sanction given them by various portions 
of the world in different ages, but from the character and condition of 
man—his moral agency and accountability ; his utter destitution of a 
proper knowledge of the being and attributes of God; and of his own 
origin, duty, and destiny, 

We plant ourselves in the outset upon the universally-admitted, if not 
self-evident, truth, that man is a moral agent. In proof of this position, 
an appeal to the internal consciousness of every candid mind ought to 
be sufficient. Who that has arrived at the age of accountability and 
discretion, and has seriously reflected on the subject, can for a moment 
doubt the fact that there is a distinction between right and wrong, and 
that he is capable of doing the one and the other? It matters not, so 
far as our present purpose is concerned, nor will we stop here to inquire 
how this knowledge of good and evil, or consciousness of right and 
wrong, is derived. Whether it be an innate principle originally planted 
in the constitution of our nature, “growing with our growth, and 
strengthening with our strength,” or whether it be a direct infusion from 
the Divine Being, it matters not in this investigation. We assume it as 
an incontrovertible truth, that every one endued with rational powers 
has this internal consciousness of his moral agency. He feels and 
knows that he can do right and wrong, as he may determine in his own 
mind. He may bewilder his intellect by vain philosophical specula- 
tions, but, while reason and common sense occupy the throne of his 
mind, he never can shake off this settled conviction 


Ch. ii.) REVELATION NECESSARY. 501 


The moral agency of man is farther evident from the history of the 
world. All men in all nations have terms expressive of approbation or 
blame, which they invariably use, not only in reference to their own 
actions, but the actions of others, indicating clearly a sense of guilt 
when they do wrong, or of innocence when they do right; or censure, 
or approval, in reference to others, accordingly as they may do right or 
wrong. If man be not a moral agent, capable of performing both good 
and bad actions, it follows that the God of providence has led all 
nations into the belief of a monstrous delusion; and that the God of 
nature has planted or infused into the mind of every individual this 
delusion, from which it is inpossible for any to escape. 

if man be a moral agent, which, we think, must be admitted, then we 
ask: Has he by nature, or can he acquire by his natural faculties, thar 
knowledge of God and his perfections necessary to the performance of 
the functions of a moral agent? In this investigation we have nothing 
to do with the atheist. We assume the existence of God, and address 
our argument solely to the deist, or such as admit the existence and 
perfections of a great Supreme. 

Admitting, then, that God exists—that he is possessed of those per- 
fections that even the deist ascribes to him, and that he is our creator 
and preserver—how can we, without divine revelation, gain that knowl- 
edge of God which we indispensably need to qualify us for acting our 
part as moral agents? We find the entire pagan world, even the 
Greeks and Romans, and all the most refined portions of them, in the 
boasted Augustan age of literature and intelligence, immersed in super- 
stition and idolatry. Socrates, Plato, Cicero, and a few individuals of 
the wisest and best among them, may, to some extent, have arisen above 
the masses of the people, and so far burst the shackles that bound them 
in darkness as to gain a glimpse of the true light. They had clearer 
and more elevated views of the Deity and his perfections than their 
fellows. But even they were shrouded in darkness, and gloom, and 
doubts. They were tossed upon the sea of conjecture; and even 
Socrates and Plato, the wisest of them, expressed their despair of 
arriving at a satisfactory knowledge of God, and of their own duty and 
destiny, till “some one should come from God to instruct them.” But 
the degree of light they possessed is rather to be traced by tradition to 
original revelation than attributed to the efforts of their own unassisted 
Treason. 

But admitting all that may be claimed in behalf of a few learned 
philosophers, this will not weaken the argument in reference to the 
great masses—the millions of the pagan world. What has ever been, 


552 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. 1. Bre 


and is still, their condition? In reference to God and religion, they are 
sitting in darkness, and dwelling in the region and shadow of death. 
They are blind as the bat, and stupid as the ass. ‘‘ Because, when they 
knew God, they glorified him not as God; they became vain in their 
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” “They changed 
the truth of God into a lie,” and bowed down in worship “to four-footed 
beasts and creeping things, to stocks and stones,” to onions and leeks, 
and snakes and crocodiles. Were not all these multiplied millions of 
idolaters moral, accountable agents? Did not they owe allegiance and 
worship to the God that made and preserved them? And how are they 
to obtain an adequate knowledge of that God of whose very existence 
they are ignorant? And not knowing God—having not the faintest 
conception of his attributes—how can they render him that homage 
and worship which are his due, and which their duty demands? 

The ignorance of the pagans, in reference to the divine attributes, is 
obvious from the very nature of their idolatrous worship. They knew 
nothing of the divine wnity, for they worshiped “gods many, and lords 
many.” The Greeks had thirty thousand divinities, and the Hindoos 
three hundred and thirty millions. They understood not the divine 
omnipresence, for they had patron deities for every country, city, town, 
hamlet, grove, river, and fountain, and partitioned out the government 
of the world to a multitudinous family of divinities. Their worship 
implies that they had no conception of the idea that the same god could 
preside, or be present, in different and distant parts of the earth at the 
same time. 

They knew as little of the divine omnipotence; for they never 
dreamed that the god of the Philistines could exert his power over the 
Israelites, or that the presiding divinities of Egypt could sway their 
scepter over Greece or Rome. 

They never conceived the thought of the divine holiness; for to their 
divinities they attributed all manner of vice and impurity. Deceit and 
treachery, cruelty and revenge, drunkenness and debauchery, theft and 
robbery, rapine and murder—these were the virtues celebrated in heathen 
temples—these were the characteristics of the divinities at whose shrine 
they worshiped and adored. They were strangers to the divine good- 
ness, love, and mercy; for they represented their divinities as capricious, 
jealous, and revengeful: evil genii, delighting in mischief and destruc- 
tion, swelled the register of their mythology. 

As among all nations, and in all religions, the attributes ascribed to 
the divinity, or divinities, worshiped, constitute the standard of perfee- 
tion, and present the model after which the character and lives of the 


Ch. 11. REVELATION NECESSARY. 503 


devout will be shaped, what can we reasonably expect from the stupid 
pagans, so grossly ignorant of God and his attributes? Where the 
mind is so shrouded in darkness, will not the heart and the life be 
steeped in degradation and misery? Do these pagans possess that 
information concerning God which their character as moral agents 
demands? 

From the entire history of the pagan world, is it reasonable to sup. 
pose that, without divine revelation, they ever could gain a qualification 
for acting with propriety their part, as free, moral, and accountable 
agents? If, then, God has created them moral agents, is it not a neces- 
sary inference that he would place within their reach the qualifications 
essential to their position? And if so, does it not, at least, appear that 
revelation is both necessary and probable? It is inconsistent with the 
adinitted perfections of God, that he should leave any of his works 
imperfect. or deficient. Therefore we cannot suppose that he would 
leave man—the noblest of his sublunary creation —destitute of the 
essential means for performing that part which is the great end of his 
being. Shall it be supposed that a being capable of knowing God, of 
admiring his perfections, walking in his ways, and enjoying his smiles, 
is to be left to grope his way through life so utterly and hopelessly 
ignorant of that God “in whom he lives, and moves, and has his 
being”? That we may know God, it is necessary he should “speak to 
us by his Son.” 

The worship of pagan nations was such as might reasonably be 
expected from their ignorance of the true God and his character. As 
they attributed all manner of abominations and crimes to their divini- 
ties, so they encouraged the same in their worship. In nearly all 
heathen countries, the altars of religion are crimsoned with the blood 
and smoked with the bodies of human sacrifices. There is incontest- 
able evidence that this abominable worship obtained, not only among 
barbarous nations, but the most intelligent and refined. It prevailed 
among the ancient Canaanites. It was practiced by the Syrians, Per- 
sians, Phenicians, and all the nations of the East. The Scythians, 
Thracians, Druids, Gauls, and Germans, were polluted with the same 
cruel abomination. The Carthaginians sacrificed ‘to Moloch thousands 
of infants. The sunny plains of Africa have been dyed with the blood 
of millions offered in sacrifice to devils. On our own continent, it is 
said, Montezuma offered annually a sacrifice to the sun of twenty thou 
sand human victims. In India, it is well known that millions have 
been cast to the crocodiles of the Ganges, or crushed beneath the wheels 
of Juggernaut. And even learned Greece and Rome, with all their 


5o4 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 1 


boasted statesmen, philosophers, poets, and orators, have left upon the 
monuments of their greatness the stain of human blood poured in saeri- 
fice to idols. 

And what has been the character of the temple service among pagans 
generally? It has been but a school of vice, where drunkenness and 
revelry, lasciviousness and impurity, and all manner of abomination, 
have been practiced and encouraged. The heathen mysteries, which 
probably originated in the worship of Isis and Osiris with the Egyptians, 
and were afterward adopted in Persia, as well as in Greece and Rome, 
were not exempt from impurities and crimes of the most shameful 
character. Even the Eleusinian mysteries practiced at Athens, what- 
ever may have been their original design, were but a canopy of dark- 
ness, covering from the public gaze the most atrocious impurities which 
were “done in secret.” Their evident tendency was to increase super- 
stii.on and licentiousness. And this evil machinery was strengthened 
in its influence by the fact that the gods whom they worshiped were 
celebrated for the very crimes they here encouraged and learned to 
imitate. What could be the effect of such a religious service, but to 
degrade the intellect, imbrute the moral sensibilities, and steep the soul 
in iniquity? If this be the religion which man, left to himself, will 
follow, how necessary must be divine revelation to scatter by its beams 
these Cimmerian clouds, and pour into these waters of bitterness its 
healing streams! Does not reason proclaim that a wise and merciful 
Creator will be led, by his attributes, to rescue from such a state his 
creature man, by conferring upon him a revelation of his will? 


Ch. 11.] 


REVELATION NEORSSARY. 555 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER II. 


Question 1. What is the general defi- 
nition given of a divine revelation? 

2. In what respect are we in danger of 
erring in reference to reason, as 
connected with revelation? 

3. To what extent should reason be used 
in investigating the evidences of 
Christianity ? 

2 When satisfied that God has given us 
a revelation, how should reason 
fartner be employed? 

5. Does revelation contain any thin 
contrary to reason? 

6. Does it contain any thing beyond the 
comprehension of reason? 

7. How may we account for apparent 
discrepancies between reason and 
revelation? 

8. Is the prima facie evidence for or 
against revelation? 

9. With what generally-admitted fact 
does the author begin? 


10. 


Ad 


12. 


13. 


14. 


15. 


16. 


17. 


18. 


ig 


To what does he appeal for the es 
tablishment of that fact? 

What is the second argument in 
favor of moral agency? 

Can man by nature gain the knowl 
edge necessary for him as a moral 
agent? 

With what class of skeptics does the 
author propose to argue? 

What knowledge of God and his 
attributes did the ancient pagans 
possess ? 

From what 
rived? 

How does the character of their 
worship show their ignorance of 
God? 

Among what nations have human 
sacrifices been offered ? 

What was the character of the hea 
then mysteries? 

What was their natural result? 


source was it de 


556 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B.1 


CHAPTER ITI. 


REVELATION NECESSARY TO TEACH THE ORIGIN, DUTY, AND DESTINY 
OF MAN. 


In this chapter we propose to show that revelation is necessary to 
teach us what we ought to know-concerning ourselves—our origin, duty, 
and destiny. 

By claiming that revelation is necessary, we do not mean that it is so 
in the absolute and strongest sens __ or that God is so obliged by his attri- 
butes, or the nature of things, by such necessity, that he could not avoid 
furnishing us a revelation of his will. The necessity in the case relates 
solely to the character and wants of man. Such are his destitution and 
imbecility, that he greatly needs a revelation from God—that is, he 
cannot otherwise gain that information which is indispensable, to enable 
him to fill the measure of his being, and the end of his creation, as a 
moral agent. In this sense, we consider revelation necessary. 

We think that the possibility and probability of revelation are both 
clearly implied in its necessity; and therefore we deem a separate dis- 
cussion of those questions superfluous. To deny that revelation is pos- 
sible, is to deny the divine omnipotence. And if it be shown that reve- 
lation is necessary, its probability must be admitted as an inevitable 
sequence. 

Occupying, as we unquestionably do, the position of intellectual, 
rational, moral agents, reason demands that we possess that information 
which is necessary to our character and position. Surely it cannot be 
eonsistent with the attributes of God, that he should leave his creature, 
thus nobly endowed, to grope in the dark in reference to his own origin, 
duty, and destiny! Unless we know our origin—that “God hath made 
us, an. not we ourselves”—how can we feel our dependence upon him, 
and our obligation to do his will? And unless we are sensible of this 
dependence and obligation, by what influence can we be led to the per- 
formance of our duty, or even to know that such a thing as duty, in 
refererce to ourselves, can exist? Unless we know what our duty is, 
how can we be expected to perform it, however much we may feel the 


Ch. iii. REVELATION NECESSARY 557 


obligation? And unless we have some knowledge 0; our destiny— 
unless assured of the immortality of our nature, and that we must 
meet the retributions of an hereafter—where will be the sanctions essen- 
tial to enforce the will of God, as the law and rule of life, and the 
standard of moral rectitude? And without such standard or rule, 
clearly understood, how can we either occupy the position, or perform 
with propriety the part, of moral agents? 

We think it clear, that if man be a moral agent, he must have 
some satisfactory knowledge of his origin, duty, and destiny. But with 
out revelation, have we, or can we have, this knowledge? Deny that. 
God hath spoken to man; close the Bible, and ask the pagan world: 
Whence came man? In what part of the universe did he originate? 
From wnat source did he spring into being? Aside from revelation, 
this whole subject rests under an impenetrable cloud. No ray of light 
is to be seer, Ask the “wise men of the East,” the Brahmans and 
philosophers f India, and they will tell you that man was formed from 
the different parts of the body of the Creator—some from his mouth; 
others from his breast, or arm, or thigh, or foot. 

But go to the masters of Grecian and Roman learning—after they 
had enriched their magazines by ransacking the lore of Egypt, Assyria, 
Babylon, and Persia—and how much better are their teachings? Diod. 
orus Siculus, a learned historian of the famous Augustan age, after 
traversing Europe and Asia, and devoting thirty years to the task, comes 
forth with a general history of all nations, and, in reference to the ori- 
gin of the human race, tells us “that moisture generates creatures from 
heat as from a seminal principle, whence it is manifest that, in the 
beginning of the world, through the fertility of the soil, the first men 
were formed in Egypt.” The presumption of this erudite pagan is, that 
from the fermenting mud on the banks of the Nile men originally 
came forth like frogs, and thus the world has been peopled. Nor need 
it be thought that this account does injustice to the pagan world; for if 
there be in all the writings of pagan philosophers any thing better, it 
has been pilfered from revelation. 

Some have supposed that man never had a beginning, but that the 
race has been eternally propagated by an infinite succession of genera- 
tions—a proposition too absurd to deserve notice. Some have attrib- 
uted the origin of man to the elephant’s snout, and some to the dragon’s 
tooth, and others to a fortuitous flowing together of primeval atoms; 
and thus one absurd conjecture after another upon the subject has 
received favor with the philosophers and schools of pagan antiquity, 
Who that reflects upon this subject can fail to be convinced that reve- 


558 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pudi BY. 


lation was necessary to dispel these dark clouds which have ever rested 
upon the heathen world, upon so interesting a question as the origin of 
man? One ray of light flashing from the first chapter of Genesis, is 
ten thousand times more satisfactory than all the silly dreams and sense 
less theories of paganism. But if we discard the teachings of the Bible, 
we are then left, as to the question of our origin, to be tossed forever 
upon the waves of wild conjecture. 

Without revelation, we are quite as destitute in reference to a knowl- 
edge of our duty. Toa moral agent, this knowledge is indispensable. 
Without it, moral agency is an utter absurdity. 

To see clearly what our condition would be without revelation, we 
need only look at the condition of pagans in all ages and in all parts 
of the world. What has ever been the state of morals in those dark 
regions? What were their national codes, the teachings of their phi- 
losophers and schools, and the example of the wisest and best of their 
sages, and the masses of their people? Not the first precept of the 
decalogue was ever understood and carried out among them. 

We need not dwell upon the general licentiousness and crime in which 
the heathen masses have ever been immersed—their falsehood and theft, 
their debaucheries and murders, their profanity and vile uncleanness— 
but let us look at the theories and practice of the more enlightened and 
better classes. They knew nothing of the great Christian duty of lov- 
ing our enemies, and doing good to all: they inculcated revenge as a 
virtue; pride and worldly ambition they encouraged and extolled. 
In Egypt and Sparta, theft was permitted and justified. Both Aris- 
totle and Plato, with all their philosophy and refinement, saw nothing 
wrong in the exposure of infants, or the crime of abortion. The mur- 
der of weak, deformed, or imperfect children, was authorized by the 
renowned Lycurgus. In the refined city of Athens, with the sanc- 
tion of public sentiment and civil authority, innocent infants were 
exposed, and virtuous women were treated as slaves. Socrates, Plato 
and Seneca, both by precept and example, taught that there was noth 
ing indecent or wrong in common swearing. Even among the renowned 
sages, and erudite masters of philosophy, unnatural lusts were not only 
taught and allowed, but unblushingly indulged. The practice of adul 
tery was rather sanctioned and commended than censured or con- 
demned. Cicero and Seneca were the open apologists and advocates 
of suicide; and Demosthenes, Cato, Brutus, and Cassius, hallowed it by 
their example. - 

With all these authentic facts before us, can we believe that a divine 
revelation is not needed to teach man his duty? If such were the 


(Sh. iii.) REVELATION NECKSSARY. 559 


morals taught by the most intelligent and virtuous in the center of 
civilization, letters, and refinement, and even in the most favored times, 
what must have been the degradation of the masses? Contrast. this 
picture with the justice, meekness, gentleness, temperance, chastity, 
purity, truth, sincerity, holiness, and benevolence of Christianity, and 
then decide the question: Was not revelation needed to teach man his 
duty? 

There is no reason to suppose that modern unbelievers in Christian 
lands, destitute of the influence of revelation, would be wiser or better 
than Socrates or Plato, Seneca or Cicero. Such has been the influence 
of gospel precept, of the publication of the great lesson of love to God 
and man, in Christian lands, that it is difficult for the infidel to con- 
ceive his indebtedness to the Bible. ‘Take the Saviour’s golden rule— 
“ Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them”—and it embodies a more complete system of moral science than 
can he gained from all the tomes of pagan lore. Man never knew h‘a great 
duty as a moral agent till he read the two great commandments of 
“loving God with all the heart, and loving our neighbor as ourselves ;” 
and these holy precepts were never known on earth, except as borrowed 
from revelation. 

Revelation is farther needed to instruct us concerning our destiny 
Without the doctrine of the soul’s immortality, and of future rewarda 
and punishments, there can be no substantial foundation for morals. 
Without penal sanctions, there may be room for counsel or advice, but 
there can be no place for Jaw; and daw is essential to moral agency. 

In regard to the soul, the notions of the wisest of the pagans were 
diverse, vague, and unsatisfactory. They were clouded with doubt and 
uncertainty. Among the Greeks, the atheists, as well as the principal 
schools of deistical philosophers—the Pythagoric, the Platonic, the 
Peripatetic, and the Stoic—all taught that God was the soul of the 
world, and that human souls are but an emanation, or separation of 
essence, from God, and that after their separation from the body at 
death, they will be reunited to God by refusion, as a drop of water te 
the ocean. This, it will be perceived, is substantially the doctrine of 
annihilation. Some of them held that this reunion of souls with God 
took place with all men at death; others, (the Pythagoreans,) that it 
was not till after a succession of transmigrations ; and others still, (the 
Platonists,) held that the pure, unpolluted souls, were absorbed in the 
divine essence, immediately on death, but that others entered into a 
ruccession of other bodies, till, being purified by the process, they 
reéntered the parent substance. 


560 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 1 


Democritus, and others, were real materialists, holding that the soul 
had no existence except as connected with the body, and that death is 
the end of the human career. Epicurus and his followers also denied 
a future state, and Cicero testifies that the masses of the people were 
followers of Epicurus. 

It is admitted that Socrates, Plato, Cicero, and a few of the wisest of 
the heathen philosophers, rose above the masses, and uttered some ele- 
vated notions concerning the soul and an hereafter. But they had no 
settled conviction—no firm assurance. With them, all was flickering 
hope, emitting a faint gleam to-day, to go out to-morrow. All was the 
unsatisfactory struggles of reason feebly grappling with a theme too 
wonderful for her unassisted faculties, and, like some half-fledged bird, 
making “unearthly flutterings” in its fruitless effort to fly. They never 
arrived at a certainty. Hypothesis, conjecture, and a degree of proba- 
bility and hope, unsatisfying to their own minds, was all they could 
reach. And of this disquieting uncertainty and depressing doubt, they 
made ample confession, and mourned their inability to find a firmer 
basis for their reasoning and a surer foundation for their hope. 

And now, we ask, Can it be supposed that God, after having made 
man “in his own image,” and endued him with the noble principle of 
free moral agency, will leave him thus adrift, like a ship at sea without 
rudder or compass, to be wildly driven and tossed by the winds? Does 
not man need, not only a hope, but to be possessed of an assurance, of 
his immortality? And it is now almost universally admitted that this 
certainty can only be gained by a revelation from God. Is it not clear 
that God, who spoke man into being, can, with equal ease, speak him 
out of being; and whether he will or not, who can know but God, and 
he to whom he may reveal it? That he has revealed this doctrine, 
seems to us as certain as that man is constituted a moral agent. Surely 
it must greatly enhance our enjoyment to know that we shall live here- 
after! And will not God, who alone can impart that knowledge, and 
who delights in the happiness of all, confer upon us this blessing? 

But if divine revelation was thus necessary to teach us concerning 
God and his worship, and concerning man, as to his origin, duty, and 
destiny, it is equally clear that it was necessary to teach us the way of 
reconciliation to God, and of eternal salvation. That man is a sinful 
being, in a state of guilt and consequent unhappiness, the candid, intel- 
ligent deist, cannot deny. It is a truth recorded upon the conscience 
of every reflecting man, and upon every page of the world’s history. 
It is not only a doctrine of the Bible, but has been fully admitted by 
all the sages and philosophers of paganism. To discover our great 


Ch. iii.] REVELATION NECESSARY. 561 


moral malady—our state of sin and misery—has been no difficult 
task for human reason, even where the light of divine revelation has 
not shone. But farther, the light of nature is too dim to conduct the 
anxious inquirer. Reason alone may teach man to sigh over his mise- 
ries here, but faith in the revelation of God must point him to his rem- 
edy, light up the torch of hope, and teach him to smile at the prospect 
of a blissful hereafter. After all the anxieties and struggles of the 
wisest of the pagans upon the subject, they honestly confessed their 
utter helplessness. 

According to the admissions of all the most intelligent deists, God is 
not only good, but just, and must “render to every man according to his 
works.” Man being constituted a moral agent, must be under Jaw to 
his Maker. This law is just, and holy, and righteous; and as such, 
“every transgression and disobedience must receive a just recompense 
of reward.” But the great question is, How can man obtain pardon 
for sins committed? Close the Bible, and from all the voices of nature 
there is heard no solution of this problem. Should man be supposed 
capable, beginning at any definite period in his history, of rendering 
perfect obedience for all time to come, he would then only be doing his 
duty for the time. The past could not be affected by this period of 
rectitude, however perfect or long-protracted it might be. No claim of 
violated justice would be met; no past sin would be blotted out. The 
thunder of the insulted law would still be sounding in his ear: “ Pay 
me what thou owest.” 

That man needs the pardon of sin, is testified, not only by the uni- 
versal suffrage of conscience, but by the sacrifices so generally prevalent 
in the worship of the heathen world. While it is clear that sacrificial 
worship originated in the appointment of God, yet its perpetuation by 
tradition among the pagans, in however corrupt a form, evinces their 
felt necessity of pardon. Nor has this necessity been denied by modern 
unbelievers. But reason has failed to show how this pardon may be 
obtained. Some have relied upon the abstract benevolence of God, 
arguing that God is too good to punish his creatures for every slight 
offense, or to punish them severely at all; but this plea is inconsistent 
with reason, and leads to absurdity. The same ground on which God 
would punish any sinner, to any degree, for any offense, would require’ 
him to punish every sinner, according to his deservings, for every 
offense. Hence, to claim pardon by mere prerogative, on the ground 
of the divine goodness, is to abrogate all law, and disrobe man of his 
moral agency. It would dishonor God, setting his attributes at war. 
It would overthrow his justice, under the false pretense of extolling his 

36 


562 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii B. 1. 


goodness. In the nature of things, pardon cannot flow frem govern- 
ment, as a matter of course. That would be to destroy all law, and 
proclaim universal license to sin. Pardon, by mere prerogative, or law, 
would require it in every case; and that would be a subversion of all 
authority and government. 

But a large class of unbelievers contend that God may pardon the 
sinner on the grgund of repentance alone. This principle was laid 
down by Lord Herbert as one of the pillars of his deistical scheme, 
and has been advocated by the most numerous class of infidels. And 
we regret to know that some, calling themselves Christians, have favored 
the same doctrine. But against this theory there are several unanswer- 
able objections. 

If by repentance be meant merely a sorrow for sin, such as every 
sinner will be likely to feel as soon as overtaken by the just punish- 
ment for his sin, and resulting solely from that punishment—to pardon 
every sinner on the ground of that repentance, would be no better than 
pardon on mere prerogative; for what sinner, when made to feel the 
penalty of violated law, will not be sorry for having incurred it? 
And to release from punishment as soon as it is felt, is the same as 
not to inflict it at all; and that would amount to the abrogation of 
all law. 

But if by repentance be understood that contrition for sin which 
implies a real reformation of heart and life, from a sincere conviction 
of the intrinsic evil of sin, and of its offensiveness to God, this is a 
repentance that infidelity never produced. It is a fruit which never 
grew in nature’s garden. It can only result from the gracious spiritual 
influence which the gospel provides, through the atonement of Christ. 
And in that ease, pardon, though not given without repentance, is 
not on the groumd of repentance, but of the atonement, and on the 
condition of faith. For the deist to base pardon on this ground, 
would be to renounce his infidelity, and to kneel at the cross of the 
Redeemer. 

Again, if pardon may be conferred on the mere ground of repentance, 
then it would follow that whenever the sinner repents, the entire pen- 
alty of his sins should at once be removed. But such is evidently not 
the fact. Repentance does not restore the wasted fortune, health, and 
character, of the sinner. In regard to the things of this life, repent- 
ance does not remove the evils already incurred by sin; yet it may 
secure indemnity against similar consequences in the future, by 
saving us from turning again to sin and folly. Even so, in reference 
to spiritual things, repentance may prevent an accumulation of guilt in 


Ch. iii.] REVELATION NECESSARY. 563 


the future, but it cannot absolve from the guilt of a single sin of the 
past. 

Repentance cannot change the divine law, nor the nature of the sin 
by which it has been insulted, And while these remain the same, on 
what principle can pardon be secured? The penalty must remain in 
its force, or the law, by the violation of which it has been incurred, 
must be satisfied, either in the person of the offender, or a substitute. 
The sinner, in his own person, can only meet the claims of the violated 
law, by suffering the penalty to the last-jot and tittle. Nature can 
point to no substitute. The voice of reason speaks of no deliverer. 
The wealth of kings is too poor to purchase the pardon of one sin, nor 
can the wisdom of the schools show where it is to be found. But God, 
in his infinite wisdom and goodness, “hath found a ransom ;” and reve- 
lation, shedding forth her beams upon the darkness of a guilty world, 
and lifting up her voice, cries: “ Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh 
away the sin of the world!” 

Natural religion can show us our misery, and pierce our vitals with 
the sting of sin; but revealed religion can point us to our remedy, and 
pluck that sting away. Natural religion may awaken our anxieties, 
tax the utmost powers of our reason, and suspend us forever, vibrating 
between hope and despair; but revealed religion places our feet. upon 
the Rock, washes us from our sins, and anchors our hope in heaven. 
How precious, then, the revelation of God to a guilty world! How 
necessary to cheer us amid the darkness and gloom of this world, and 
to conduct us to the fruitions of the next! 


564 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. Bo 1, 
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IIL 


Question 1. Revelation is necessary to] 9. What crimes have they classed 


teach three things—what are they? among the virtues? 

2. In what sense is the term necessary| 10. Did their sages and philosophers 
here understood‘ sanction these crimes? 

3. Are the possibility and probability of | 11. Why are modern skeptics wiser 
revelation implied by its necessity? or better than ancient pagans 

4. Why is it necessary for us to know our were? 
origin—our duty—our destiny? 12. Why is revelation needed to teach 

5. Can we know our origin without us concerning our destiny? 
revelation ? 13. What were the pagan views con- 

8. What notion had the pagans on this cerning the soul and immortal- 
subject? ity? 

7. Why is a knowledge of our duty| 14. Why was revelation necessary to 
essential to the character of a moral teach us the plan of savation? 
agent? 15. Wherein appears the superior 

4 What has always teen the state of ity of revealed to natural re 


morals among pagans? ligion ? 


Ch. iv.] THE CHARACTER OF EVIDENCE. obi 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE CHARACTER OF EVIDENCE PROPER ON THE SUBJECT OF REVE- 
LATION —CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND 
THE BIBLE. 


Ir may be proper, before we proceed farther in this investigation, to 
call attention to the degree of evidence which we have a right to expect, 
and with which we should be satisfied on the great question before us. 
And first, we remark that the evidence should be in accordance with 
the nature of the subject. In reference to physical subjects coming 
under cognizance of the exact sciences, mathematical demonstration is 
not only attainable, but requisite, and nothing less should satisfy the 
inquiring mind. But in reference to moral subjects, to which the 
admeasurements of the exact sciences are inapplicable, mathematical 
demonstration is impossible, and a reasonable mind would not demand 
it. For illustration, let any sane person trace the various steps in the 
solution of a problem in Euclid, seeing clearly the necessary links in 
the chain of the demonstration, and it is impossible for him to doubt 
the truth of the conclusion. He sees that it must be so, and cannot be 
otherwise. But let him turn his attention to some moral subject—let 
him inquire, for instance, on what day of the week and of the month, 
and in what month and year, Columbus first set foot on American soil, 
And here, although by an accumulation of testimony the mind may be 
conducted to a satisfactory conclusion, yet the evidence is very different 
in its nature from a mathematical @emonstration; nor can the mind 
grasp the conclusion with that positive conviction that it is obliged to 
be so, and cannot be otherwise, which pertains to mathematical demon- 
stration. 

On the subject of the evidences of Christianity, it is unphilosophical 
and absurd to demand mathematical demonstration. All that a rational 
mind can ask is, that the moral evidence be so clear and abundant as 
to conduct to the firm conviction that revelation is true beyond the ‘pos- 
sibility of a reasonable doubt. With this kind of evidence we have te 
dea] on all moral subjects. By it we settle all contested points in his 


566 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. un. Bot 


tory, and determine the sense of all statutes and laws; by it we are 
controlled in the daily transactions of business, and our whole course 
of life is guided and shaped. Discard this class of testimony as unwor- 
thy to be heeded by rational minds, and you make a fearful blank upon 
the pages of literature, and of all science but what is mathematical, 
and extinguish at a blow nine-tenths of the sum of human knowl- 
edge. Let it be admitted, as the decree of sound reason and _ philoso- 
phy, that we are never to go forward to action upon our convictions till 
we can clearly see that those convictions are founded upon mathemat 
ical demonstration, and the wheels of commerce will at once be chained, 
the general ‘progress of society paralyzed, and the rippling stream of 
every-day life become a stagnant pool. 

It is upon moral evidence, and not mathematical demonstration, that 
Christianity founds her claims. But this evidence is not only clear and 
satisfactory, but is almost infinitely cumulative and abundant. It is 
such that, when carefully examined, the candid, sincere and docile 
mind, seeing no room for a reasonable doubt, may rest upon it as satis- 
factory; yet it is not so overwhelming but that the captious, queru- 
lous, and malicious spirit, may demur, and doubt, and reject, and spurn 
it all. 

Were these evidences greatly diminished, either in number or force, 
they might not be sufficient to produce satisfactory conviction in the 
mind of the sincere and humble inquirer; but were they greatly aug- 
mented, so as to amount to mathematical demonstration, then it might 
be absolutely impossible for even the most captious and malicious to 
find room for cavil or doubt. In either case the basis of man’s moral 
ayency would be sapped; for it is essential to moral agency that man 
may do either right or wrong, and consequently, according to the decision 
of his own mind, voluntarily receive or reject Christianity. Deny him 
this power, and you destroy his accountability; but admit it, and he 
may believe to the saving of his soul, or he may reject revelation, but 
it will be at his own fearful peril. 

The Old and New Testaments contain what is understood by the Chris- 
tian world to be the revelation of God. Upon these writings the Christiar 
religion is founded. Hence it is necessary, before we enter directly upon 
the discussion of the more formal evidences of Christianity, that we examine 
the claims of these writings, and be well satisfied as to the degree of eredit 
and authority to which they are entitled. From the connection between 
these Scriptures and Christianity, it is clear that if the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments be a forgery, or a mere fictitious or fabulous 
production, then both Moses and Christ (if such persons ever lived) 


Ch. iv.) THE CHARACTER OF EVIDENCE. 567 


were impostors, and the Jewish and Christian religions are both a mani- 
fest cheat and imposition upon the world. But on the other hand, if 
the genuineness, authenticity, authority, and inspiration of these Scrip- 
tures, as claimed by Christians, can be established, then it will follow 
that Christianity is true. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, 
then Christianity is a glorious and all-important truth, And if Chris- 
tianity is true, then the Bible is a revelation of God to man. These 
two positions stand or fall together. The Bible and the Christian 
religion are either both true or both false. As it is from the Scriptures 
that we learn what Christianity is, and gain a knowledge of the princi- 
pal and more direct evidences by which its claim to truth must be 
tested, we think it the more natural course in this investigation, to begin 
by an inquiry concerning the claims of the Scriptures to our regard 
and confidence. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IV. 


Question 1. What kind of evidence greatly increasing or diminishing 
should we require on this subject? the evidence? 

2. Why is it absurd to demand mathe-| 4 What is the connection between the 
matical domonstration? claims of the Scriptures and of 


3. What would be the effect of either Christianity ? 


568 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ti. B. 1. 


CHAPTER V. 


ANTIQUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, 


In fixing our attention upon the Seriptures of the Old and Nea 
Testaments, the first thing demanding our notice is their remarkable 
antiquity. On this point no laborious research or extended argument is 
needed. In this connection we do not propose an inquiry concerning 
the character of the sacred writers, or the authority pertaining to their 
productions; these questions will be considered in their proper place. 
The simple question now before us is the antiquity of the Scriptures as 
a whole. The Christian claims both the Old and the New Testaments 
as a divine revelation, containing the history and setting forth the prin- 
ciples of his religion, These Scriptures, though written by a great 
variety of authors, extending through centuries, and embodying two 
great dispensations—the Mosaic and the Christian—are yet so intimately 
connected, and so necessarily dependent upon each other, that they are 
not to be contemplated as two distinct and separate systems, but as 
kindred parts of the same connected system, constituting the complete 
revelation of God to man. 

As to the New Testament, it will be shown in its proper connection 
that it originated in the apostolic age, and has been received and 
revered by the Church, and its existence acknowledged by the world, in 
all succeeding ages. But for the Old Testament and its authors a much 
higher antiquity is claimed. 

In presenting the claim of antiquity for the Scriptures, we do not 
pretend to prove, by an argument founded upon that consideration 
alone, that revelation is true; all we claim is, that antiquity entitles 
revelation to great reverence and respect—it is a prima facie presump- 
tion in its favor. 

We will not here dwell upon the fact that the sacred writers not only 
profess to carry the chronology of man beyond the period of Homer 
and Cadmus, but even up to the beginning of the world. While 
pagan records are so soon lost amidst the clouds of Olympus or the 
darkness of the tombs of Egypt, revelation carries us back, without 
the mists of doubt or fable, to the primal birth of our race. 


Ch. v.) ANTIQUITY OF TIE SCRIPTURES. 569 


It may easily be shown that this antiquity has been claimed for the 
Old Testament and its authors, not only by Christians from the earliest 
ages of the Christian Church, but by the Jews from the commencement 
of all historic record. And this has never been contested, but has often 
been admitted by pagan authors, even when engaged in a direct crusade 
against revelation. ; 

During the first two or three centuries of the Christian era, circum- 
stances were probably more favorable for a thorough discussion of the 
evidences of Christianity than they have ever been since that period. 
The science and learning of the pagan nations had risen to its highest 
pitch, the temple of Janus had been closed, general peace prevailed 
throughout the world, and, by reason of the wide-spread influence of the 
Roman Empire, every facility existed for the extension of commerce 
and the rapid and wide diffusion of knowledge. Add to all this the 
novelty of Christianity, and the proximity of all the great and marvel- 
lous events connected with its origin and establishment, together with 
its antagonism to the long-established customs and religions of the 
world, and we have every circumstance necessary to arrest the attention 
and awake the interest of the most able and gifted pens on both sides 
of the controversy. 

If Christianity be an imposition, that was the juncture the most 
favorable of all to expose the delusion. And bold was the effort, and 
formidable the means, employed for that object. There appeared upon 
the arena a succession of zealous and accomplished champions, armed 
and equipped with all the learning and eloquence of the schools, and 
stimulated by interest and goaded by malice, resolved to maintain the 
honor of the religion of their country, and put down the new-rising and 
hated superstition of Christianity. Celsus in the second century, Por- 
phyry and Hierocles in the third, and Julian in the fourth, stepped 
boldly forth as formal antagonists to crush by argumentative disputa- 
tion the religion of Christ. To meet this quaternity of assailants, God 
raised up in his Church not only a “noble army of martyrs,” but an 
erudite and intrepid band of apologists and defenders of the faith. 
Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustin, Origen, Eusebius, Tre- 
neeus, and Athenasius, at that interesting period fearlessly met and tri- 
umphantly vanquished the mighty champions of infidelity. 

In this controversy the Christian apologists boldly asserted for the 
Mosaie records an antiquity beyond the claims not only of all Grecian 
learning, but of all heathen mythology. Surely, if these claims of anti- 
quity on the part of Christians could have been set aside, or shows 


570 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. Bo) 


to be supposititious, these learned opponents of Christianity could and 
would have accomplished the task! But, so far from this being the 
case, there is no record of such an attempt. They either fully admitted 
them, or passed them by in silence, which implied the same. 

Let us notice a few of the many testimonies on this subject. 

Justin Martyr declares: “These things which we have learned from 
Christ and the prophets are the truth, and more ancient than any thing 
recorded by other writers.” And he charges Plato with having “copied 
from Moses,” who, he affirms, “was more ancient than all the writers of 
the Greeks.” And this point he engages to prove “even from profane 
historians themselves.” He quotes from Polemon, Apion, Ptolemzeus, 
Hellanicus, Philochorus, Castor, Thallus, and several other ancient pro- 
fane authors, this admission of the superior antiquity of Moses, and 
confirms the same by the unrebutted testimony of Philo and Josephus. 
He proceeds: “Socrates was the master of Plato, Plato of Aristotle. 
Now these men flourished in the times of Philip and Alexander of 
Macedon; wherefore it is plain how much older Moses must be than 
any of them.” He adds (speaking to the Greeks): “All your poets, 
however ancient, your legislators, historians, philosophers, and orators, 
composed and spoke in the Greek character,” but that “your own gram- 
marians themselves allow that Moses wrote in the Hebrew character 
before Greek letters were invented.” . 

Tatian proves by testimony from Chaldean, Phenician, and Egyptian 
writers, that Moses flourished not only anterior to the Trojan war, and 
consequently before the age of Homer, but prior to the origin of the 
Greek and Trojan races. He quotes testimony from Ptolemy the priest, 
clearly evincing that Moses wrote more than twenty generations anterior 
to Homer. 

Clemens Alexandrinus asserts that the Grecian philosophers are 
“vhieves and robbers, because, before the coming of Christ, they stole 
and appropriated to themselves portions of truth from the Hebrew 
prophets which they adulterated or disfigured with ignorant diligence.” 
And this fact, we may add, is abundantly confirmed by Diodorus 
Siculus, from whose history it may be learned that not only Orpheus, 
but Homer, Solon, Pythagoras, Plato, and others, in their search for 
knowledge, visited Egypt, where they met with the writings of Moses. 

Tertullian assumes the superior antiquity of the Mosaic writings, and 
that heathen philosophers have pilfered from them, as undoubted facts, 

Origen thinks it “needless to produce Egyptian, Phenician, or Gre- 
cian testimonies (in regard to the superior antiquity of the Mosaic 
records), since any one may read them by consulting Josephus’s works 


Ch. v.] ANTIQUITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 571 


where is a long catalogue of authors who confirm the truth of this 
matter by their concurrent testimonies.” 

Eusebius invokes history to attest “the superior antiquity of the 
schools of the prophets over those of the Academy, the Lyceum, or the 
Portico.” He shows that both Plato and Pythagoras borrowed from 
Moses. 

Augustin assumes it as evident, from undisputed testimony, that “the 
Bible record is more ancient than the stream of Grecian literature, car 
rying us back beyond the days of Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates, the seven 
sages of Greece, Orpheus, Linus,” etc. “Wherefore,” he adds, “ though 
the learning of Greece warms the world to this day, it cannot be boasted 
that it is as excellent as ours.” 

Among the writers, neither Jewish nor Christian, who have testified 
to the existence and antiquity of the sacred writers, may be named 
Manetho, Cheremon, Apollonius, Lysimachus, Strabo, Justin, Juvenal, 
Pliny, and Tacitus. All these, and many others, have admitted not 
only the superior antiquity of the Mosaic writings, but that Moses was 
the founder and lawgiver of the Jewish state. Indeed it may be affirmed 
that these facts were as notorious among the surrounding ancient na- 
tions as among the Jews themselves. 

As already stated, upon the mere fact of antiquity alone the Chris: 
tian does not profess to found an argument in proof of Christianity. 
yet it must be admitted that great advantage in the investigation is 
derived from this source. Revelation is here placed in the outset upor 
high vantage-ground. It is not only shown to be entitled to great rev- 
erence and respect, but there arises at once a prima facie presumption 
of its truth. It can scarcely be thought possible that this antiquity 
wuld be so long and so generally claimed and admitted, and no effort 
made for its refutation, unless it had been founded in fact. And when 
this antiquity is admitted, the arguments in favor of revelation must 
occupy a position of commanding plausibility. Indeed, it will be diffi- 
cult to show how a system such as revelation unfolds could originate at 
so early a period, or maintain the influence it has so long wielded, 
unless it had been divinely revealed, and was protected by a superin- 
tending Providence. 

The antiquity of the revelation of God invests it with an awe-inspir- 
ing majesty which must impress every reflecting mind. Amid the 
ceaseless flow of the tide of time, as age has succeeded age, the institn- 
tions and productions of human origin have been subject to continual 
mutation. Cities and empires have arisen and flourished for a season, 
but soon they have been subverted or blotted from existence; but the 


572 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PB 


Bible of God, dating its origin anterior to all the records of human 
genius or national greatness, still survives in grandeur unimpaired. 
Though it has been the object of hatred and opposition, and subjected 
to the fiercest assaults in every age, it has suffered no diminution of its 
luster. Can a structure so imperishable in its nature be wholly of 
earth? What can be found in all the world of earthly origin that has 
weathered so many storms or passed through so many conflicts as the 
Bible, still exhibiting its fair proportions unmarred, its beauty untar- 
aished, and its glory undimmed? What but the special superintend- 
ence of divine Providence can account for this wonderful preservation 
of the Bible amid the ravages of so many centuries? The fact that 
this book now exists after the conflict of ages, is powerful presumptive 
evidence of its divine origin. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER V 


Question 1. What relation do the Old| 7. By whom was it successfully met? 
and New Testaments sustain toeach| 8. What claim of antiquity did the 


other? Christian apologists assert for the 

2. Is the truth of Scripture proved by Mosaic records? 
its antiquity alone? 9. How was this claim met? 

8. Are any pagan records as ancient as| 10. What renowned Christian writers 
those of Moses? are quoted on this subject? 

4. What was the most favorable age for} 11. What authors, neither Jewish nor 
examining the claims of Christian- Christian, are named as testifying 
ity? to the superior antiquity of the 

5. What effort was then put forth against Mosaic records? 

Christianity ? 12. What kind of an argument may here 


6 By whom was this opposition headed? be founded on antiquity? 


Ch. vi.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 5738 


CHAPTER VI. 


AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES—GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


Having, in the preceding chapter, called attention to the antiquity 
of the Scriptures, we propose now to examine the authority to which 
those writings are entitled. To establish in their behalf what has 
generally been claimed for them by the Christian world, and what is 
essential to their character as a divine revelation, it must be shown: 

1. That they are genuine. 

2. That they are authentic. 

3. That they were divinely inspired. 

4, That they have been preserved, and handed down to us, essentially 
as they were originally given. 

Before we proceed farther in the investigation of the main subject 
before us, we deem it necessary to define some of the terms to be 
employed in the discussion. We use the words genuineness, authenticity, 
and integrity, as applied to the writings of Scripture, each in a dintinet 
and definite sense. 

1. By the genuineness of Scripture, or of any particular portion of 
Scripture, or of any other composition, we mean that i 4s the predue- 
tion of the author whose name it bears. 

2. By. its authenticity, we mean that it is not fictitious; but contai2s a 
faithful record of facts as they transpired. 

3. By its integrity, we mean that it has not been materially altered, 
but is essentially the same now as when originally given. 

In the use of the terms above defined, great ambiguity and confusion 
have resulted, from the fact that different authors have used some of 
them in a different, and some of them in an opposite, sense; while others 
have used them, sometimes in one sense, and sometimes in another, 
For example, according to Dr. Hill, and some other writers, a book is 
authentic when it is the production of its professed author, and genuine 
when it has not been corrupted, or materially altered, from the original 
But, according to Horne, and many who have followed him, a book is 


674 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B.1 


authenue when it is a real history, relating matters of fact, and not fie- 
tion; and genuine, when written by the person whose name it bears. 
Thus it will be perceived that the definitions of these terms by the 
above authors have been reversed. What is genuine with some is 
authentic with others, and vice versa. 

Bishop Marsh uses the terms as synonymous. Dr. Thomas Scott 
seems to use the two terms, sometimes interchangeably, and sometimes 
in the sense given by Dr. Hill; while Dr. Paley is not consistent 
with himself; for in one chapter he understands by the genuineness of a 
book that it is the production of the author whose name it bears, and 
in another he applies this definition to the authenticity, and not to the 
genuineness of the book. These diversities and inconsistencies, in re- 
gard to important definitions, have tended much to perplex and embar- 
rass the student. We consider the definition, as given by Horne, the 
most natural and accurate, and accordingly, as will be perceived, we 
have adopted, and shall follow, the same. In favor of this use of the 
terms, we have also the sanction of Bishop Watson and Dr. Chalmers, 
as well as the authority of Webster. 

Before entering on the discussion of the authority of the Scriptures, 
so far as regards the genuineness and authenticity of those writings, we 
here premise that all this part of the discussion is only preparatory to 
the main subject. The great question at issue is this: Are the Script- 
ures of the Old and New Testament a revelation from God, or are they 
not? 

In examining the claims of these writings to genuineness and authen- 
ticity, we do not propose to reach, directly, the main point in contro- 
versy; just as, in entering an inclosure by which a mansion is sur- 
rounded, we do not suppose that so soon as we have passed through the 
gate into the inclosure we are also within the mansion; so, in establish- 
ing the authority of Scripture, so far as genuineness and authenticity are 
concerned, we do not suppose that we have also established that author- 
ity, as regards the claim of divine inspiration; or that we have estab- 
lished the main proposition—that the Bible contains a revelation from 
God. But it is evident that if we would enter the mansion, we must 
first enter the inclosure, and pass through the same to the mansion. 
Even so, if we would establish the full authority claimed for the Script- 
ures, as a divine revelation, we must first establish that authority, so 
far as it is implied in the genuineness and authenticity of those writings. 
When we have advanced thus far, we have not entered the mansion, Lut 
we have made essential progress toward it—we are within the inclosure ; 
we have gained a position from which we may, with facility, make that 


Ch. vi.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. ay 7) 


entrance. Genuineness and authenticity are one thing; divine inspira- 
tion is another thing. Genuineness and authenticity are essential to 
inspiration; but inspiration does not directly and necessarily follow 
from them. It may be deduced from them, as a plain and irresistible 
inference; but these things, however kindred, are not identical. 

By establishing the genuineness and authenticity of the Scriptures, 
we only claim that these writings are thereby placed upon a level with 
the productions of honest and faithful historians, who make a true 
record of facts, of which they have been personally cognizant, or which, 
from the satisfactory testimony of others, they believe to be true; and 
which record of facts has been transmitted to us uncorrupted, and in 
all things material, essentially the same as originally written. That is, 
we claim by this argument to show that the writers of the Scriptures 
are entitled to all that credit and confidence which are generally 
awarded, and which of right belong to any faithful historian, writing 
in reference to events with which he is supposed to be well acquainted. 
If this argument be conclusively sustained, the way will then be pre- 
pared for entering upon the main question in dispute. 

Though, as we have seen, genuineness and authenticity are distinct 
things—so that a book that is genuine may not be authentic, and a book 
that is authentic may not be genuine—yet, in regard to the sacred 
writings, the same arguments that establish their genuineness generally 
prove also their authenticity. Therefore, to avoid repetition, we shall 
examine these two questions, relating to genuineness and authenticity, 
in connection. 

We proceed, first, to consider the genuineness and authenticity of the 
Old Testament. 

The question here proposed is purely historic, and must be settled 
by the same mode of argument by which we would determine any 
other question of a similar nature. Suppose that, for the first time, a 
friend puts into my hand the Koran of Mohammed—the Antiquities of 
the Jews, by Josephus—and the History of England, by Hume—and, 
sitting down to the examination of these works, I wish to satisfy myself 
as to their genuineness and authenticity, what course would I naturally 
pursue? Would I not, first, inquire whether these works had ever 
been attributed to any other authors; and if so, to whom, and by 
whom, aud under what circumstances, or by what evidences sustained ? 
Secondly. I would inquire by what evidence (arising from the testimony 
of other persons and facts, contemporary with these respective authors, 
and in the succeeding ages) may it be shown that these books were 
written by the persons whose names they bear? Thirdly. I would 


576 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, (PigLEB SL 


examine the contents of the books, to see if they were according te 
what might reasonably be expected from such persons, as, from all the 
information we can obtain, we believe the reputed authors to have been, 

Now, if after this examination, it appear that the works in question 
were never attributed to any other persons, either contemporary with 
the reputed authors or in the ages succeeding, but, on the contrary, that 
humerous other authors, either contemporary or in the succeeding ages, 
commencing near to that period, have referred to these productions, 
atiributing them, as a matter not questioned, to the authors whose 
names they bear; and should it appear that numerous other notorious 
facts and circumstances tend to the confirmation of the same thing ; 
and should it farther appear that the books in question bear strong in- 
ternal marks, all leading to the same conclusion; should all these things 
thus appear, I could have no reasonable doubt that the books were 
written by the persons whose names they bear. And it is by this mode 
of reasoning, and by this class of testimony alone, that I can be satis- 
fied as to the authorship of any work ever published in the world 
throughout all the ages past. Discard this testimony, and how can I 
know that the Iliad of Homer, the Aneid of Virgil, the Annals of 
Tacitus, the Commentaries of Cesar, the Morals of Seneca, the History 
of Xenophon, or even the Plays of Shakspeare, or the Poems of Milton, 
were written by the authors whose names they have rendered so famous? 
And may I not ask, who that has a reputation for letters or erudition, 
can doubt the genuineness of any of the books to which we have 
referred ? 

In the subject before us, it is not very material whether we begin with 
the Old or the New Testament. We may either commence with the 
present, and travel up the stream to Christ, and thence to Moses; or we 
may begin with Moses and travel down to Christ, and thence to the 
present. Perhaps, to most minds, to examine first the claims of the 
New Testament would, in the outset, be the more satisfactory and con- 
vincing. The evidence in this department, lying nearer to our point 
of vision, and being more abundant and more striking, would be likely 
to produce the deeper conviction. Besides, as Christ and his apostles 
have so thoroughly indorsed the Old Testament, not only as to its gen- 
uineness and authenticity, but also as to its divine inspiration, it neces- 
sarily follows that the establishment of the New Testament is a full 
confirmation of the Old. We cannot acknowledge the authority of 
the former without admitting that of the latter. But as it seems the 
more natural to pursue the chronological order of things, we will begin 
with the Old Testament. By this course we trust that, though convie- 


a 


Uh, vi.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 577 


tion may be less striking in the former portion of the discussion, it will 
be the more thorough and satisfactory in the issve. 

As Moses is the reputed founder of the Jewish political and eccles- 
iastical establishment, and by far the most prominent author connected 
with the Old Testament writings, we first call attention to those books 
of which he is said to have been the author. These are the first five 
books of the Bible, commonly styled the Pentateuch. 

Now, we inquire, to whom but Moses have these writings ever been 
ascribed? Among the multitudes who, in all succeeding ages, have 
referred to these writings, the world has yet to learn the name of that 
person, except Moses, to whom their authorship has been attributed. 
The books are in the world, and they must have had an origin. If 
Moses did not write them, we ask who did? For a hundred and fifty 
generations the question has been urgently pressed: Who, but Moses, 
wrote the Pentateuch? And no response has been heard but the voice 
of echo, answering “ Who?” 

We next inquire, What affirmative evidence is there to show that 
Moses was the author of these books? We answer: We have the voice 
of the Christian world, from the day of Pentecost to the present hour, 
who, without a single dissentient, have attributed these books te Moses. 
We have the testimony of the entire nation of the Jews, who, from 
their entrance into Palestine, under Joshua, to Christ, and from Christ 
to this hour, and amid all their wanderings, with united voice, have 
exclaimed, “ We are Moses’s disciples,” and “ We know that God spake 
unto Moses.” They have attributed the Pentateuch to Moses, and to 
no one else; and not only so, but they have acknowledged its authority 
and inspiration. 

Again: Josephus is clear and full in attributing the Pentateuch to 
Moses; and so also were Philo, the Egyptian Jew, and the entire cata- 
logue of the Jewish rabbins. : 

It is true that some Jews, and Christians also, have admitted that 
the last two chapters of Deuteronomy, and perhaps a few other sen- 
tences in the book, were added to the original copy given by. Moses ; 
probably by Samuel, or some of the scribes engaged in copying the 
work. But this cannot weaken the testimony as to the body of the 
work. The last chapter of Deuteronomy, containing an account of 
Moses’s death, it is probable, originally made the first chapter of the 
book of Joshua; and it never was supposed, by either Jews or Chris. 
tians, to have been written by Moses. Two or three other brief sen- 
tences (originally inserted by some scribe after the death of Moses, as 
an explanatory parenthesis) have also been admitted into the text; 

37 


578 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. fPlie BY 


ut this cannot set aside the overwhelming testimony, that the Penta 
teuch was originally given by Moses. Similar interpolations are known to 
have crept into the works of Homer, and <theraut! ors; yet no one, on that 
account, has ever denied that Homer wrote the [liad and the Odyssey. 

But pagan testimony, in addition to Christian and Jewish, abundantly 
confirms the fact that Moses not only lived at the period assigned to 
him in the Bible, but that he was the founder of the Jewish polity, and 
the author of the books containing the laws and religious services of 
that people. Many writers--Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman—might be 
quoted to this effect. We deem it necessary to name only a few. Of 
the Egyptians, Manetho and Cheremon; of the Greeks, Apollonius, 
Lysimachus, and Longinus; of the Romans, Juvenal, Justin, Pliny, 
Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus, and Celsus. These have all made reference 
to Moses, as the great Jewish lawgiver, not questioning his existence, or 
the genuineness and authenticity of his writings, as claimed by Jews 
and Christians. Now, is it not clear that we have a weight of evidence 
on this subject sufficient to satisfy all candid and impartial minds, not 
only that Moses lived at the period in which he is placed in the Jewish 
history, and is the author of the books attributed to him, but that 
those writings are neither fictions nor forgeries, but authentic histories 
of facts? But the evidence upon this subject will be much more con- 
clusive as we advance to the remaining portion of the testimony. 

In addition to the eternal evidence already adduced, we may draw 
from the contents of the Pentateuch the most satisfactory proofs of its 
genuineness and authenticity. 

This will appear, from the very circumstantial manner in which the 
politico-ecclesiastical system of the Jews, embodied in those books, is 
blended with their national history. We find here frequent genealogies 
of the Jewish tribes. According to these genealogies, their lands were 
divided, and descended in the several tribes from generation to genera- 
tion. So that, as a matter of necessity, these tables must have been care- 
fully kept and preserved; consequently, had the Pentateuch been a fic- 
tion or a forgery of a later day, the imposition would have been easily 
detected. Again, the frequent reference to geographical places, and the 
statements, that they derived their names from events recorded in the 
Mosaic writings, and that the names commenced simultaneously with the 
events, show that these works could not have been received as a true 
record, unless they had been such in reality. All these things show 
that the writer was present at the transactions recorded,and gave a 
faithful account of them as they occurred. 

The argument derived from the contents of the Pentateuch is most 


Q. vi.) AUTHURITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 579 


forcibly presented by Leslie, in his “Short and Easy Method with the 
Deists,” an abstract of which we here insert. Mr. Leslie lays down 
four marks by which the truth of all matters of fact may be proved. 
These marks will not apply to all matters of fact which are true; but 
all matters of fact to which they do apply must he true. These are the 
marks: 

1. That the fact be such as men’s outward senses can judge of. 

2. That it be performed publicly, in the presence of witnesses. 

3. That there be public monuments and actions kept up in memory 
of it. 

4, That such monuments and actions shall be established, and com- 
mence at the time of the fact. 

The first two of these make it impossible for any false fact to be 
imposed upon men at the time when it was said to be done, for every 
man’s senses would contradict it. The two latter marks secure us 
against being imposed upon in any age subsequent to that in which 
the fact is said to have been done, for then every man would inquire 
for the commemorative monuments and actions, and might easily satisfy 
himself that none such existed, or had been kept up. 

These marks Mr. Leslie applies to the facts of the Mosaic record. 
He takes it for granted that Moses could not have persuaded six hun- 
dred thousand men that he had brought them out of Egypt, leading 
them dry-shod through the Red Sea, fed them forty years in the wil- 
derness with miraculous manna, and given them water to drink from 
the smitten rock, if these things had not been true; because the senses 
of every man who was then alive would have contradicted him. So 
that here are the first two marks. 

For the same reason, he could not have made them receive his five 
books as true, which relate all these things as done before their eyes, 
if they had not been so done. Observe how positively he speaks to 
them: “And know you this day, for I speak not with your children 
which have not known, and which have not seen the chastisement of 
the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand, and his stretched- 
out arm, and his miracles. But your eyes have seen all the great acts 
of the Lord which he did.” (Deut. xi. 2, 3, 7.) Hence we must admit 
it to be impossible that these books, if written by Moses in support of 
an imposture, could have been put upon the people who were alive at 
the time when such things were said to be done. Neither could they 
have been written by an impostor, in any subsequent age, and passed 
upon the people as the writings of Moses; and for this plain reason, 
that they speak of themselves as delivered by Moses, and kept in the 


580 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PaitBay 


ark from his time, and state that a copy of them was likewise deposited 
in the hands of the king, “that he might learn to fear the Lord his 
God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.” 
(Deut. xvii. 19.) Here these books expressly represent themselves as 
being, not only the civil history, but also the established municipal law 
of the Jews, binding the king as well as the people. In whatever age 
therefore, after Moses, they might have been forged, they could have 
gained no credit, for they could not then have been found either in the 
ark, or with the king, or anywhere else; every one would have known 
that he had never heard of them. before. 

But the books of Moses not only contain the laws themselves, but 
give an historical account of their institution and regular fulfillmeni 
—of the Passover, for instance, in memory of their supernatural pro- 
tection upon the slaying of the first-born of Egypt; the dedication of 
the first-born of Israel, both of man and beast; the preservation of 
Aaron’s rod which budded, of the pot of manna, and of the brazen 
serpent, which remained till the days of Hezekiah; the consecration of 
the tribe of Levi to the sacerdotal service; the designation of the high- 
priest, with his robes and his incense, his breast-plate, and his urim and 
thummim. From all this, and much more of the kind that might be 
added, it appears how utterly impossible it would have been for an 
impostor, in any subsequent age, to have palmed these books upon the 
Jews as the veritable writings of Moses. Could they have been per- 
suaded that they had received these books from their fathers—been 
taught them from their childhood, and had taught them to their children; 
that they had been circumcised themselves, and had cireumcised their 
children ; that they had never eaten swine’s flesh; that they had uni- 
formly observed the ritual and sacrificial services of their splendid 
tabernacle ; could they have been thus persuaded, when they had never 
heard of any of these things before? Equally impossible would it have 
been to impose upon the Jews all these laws and observances, in one 
age, without any reason or ground of their origin, and then for another 
impostor, in a subsequent age, to invent all these reasons, and to per: 
suade them that they had all along been observing these things, for 
reasons of which they had never before heard. Thus it is clear that 
the two latter marks—the public monuments and actions, and the insti- 
tution of these at the time of the fact—preclude the possibility of impo- 
sition at any subsequent age. And if, as we have shown, the Mosaie 
writings could never have been received by the Jews, either in the days 
of Moses or at any subsequent period, as the writings of Moses, unless 
‘hey had been such, it necessarily follows, since the Jews have always 


Ch. vi.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 581 


affirmel that they received these records from Moses, that they must 
be both genuine and authentic. 

We now inquire, How may we satisfy ourselves of the genuineness 
and authenticity of the Old Testament as a whole? 

That the books of the Old Testament, as now published among us, 
are the same originally received among the Jews, and which have ever 
been held by them as the divinely-authorized history of their national 
polity and religion, we have the most satisfactory evidence for believing. 

Our Old Testament entirely corresponds with that which is now in 
the possession of the Jews, and which they testify, with united voice, 
is the same that they have ever had among them from the first receiv- 
ing of their Scriptures, and which they have ever watched over and 
preserved with the most scrupulous care. This testimony alone is most 
indubitable, that these Scriptures have not been corrupted or altered 
since the origin of Christianity. 

Such has been the enmity of the Jews against the Christians, from 
the commencement of Christ’s religion to the present day, that the fol- 
lowers of Christ, had they been so disposed, could not have corrupted 
the Old Testament without being instantly detected and exposed by the 
Jews. And that the Jews have not corrupted their copies we are as- 
sured, not only by the sacredness with which they have always held their 
Scriptures, and the abhorrence with which they have ever looked upon 
the crime of corrupting or interpolating one jot or tittle of the sacred 
word, but by the fact that their attempt would instantly have been 
detected and exposed by the learned doctors with whom the early 
Christian Church abounded. Neither Jews nor Christians could have 
made any change in these writings without being detected by the other 
party. And that no change has been made we may be doubly assured, 
by the fact that Jews and Christians have, to this day, the same Old 
Testament, even as to each book, chapter, «nd verse. 

In confirmation of the same position, Josephus, about the close of 
the first century, published in his works a catalogue of the books of 
Scripture, which he asserts the Jews have ever held as of divine author- 
ity, and carefully preserved among them. In this catalogue he names 
the five books of Moses, thirteen of the prophets, four of Hymns and 
Moral Precepts. This—allowing, as critics assert, that Ruth was added 
to Juages, and the Lamentations to Jeremiah—will make the books 
given by Josephus correspond with those of the Old Testament as it 
now exists among us. 

Next, it is a remarkable fact that, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadel: 
phus, some two hundred and eighty years before the Christian era, the 


582 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Piano 
Old Testament, as then existing, in possession of the Jews, was trans- 
lated into Greek for the use of the Jews in Egypt, and a copy of it 
placed in the Alexandrian Library. This version, called the Septuagint, 
as the Greek language was then almost universally prevalent, soon 
became widely disseminated, and was thenceforth accessible to the 
whole learned world. It was in common use in Palestine in the time 
of our Saviour; and, to this day, has a place in the library of almost 
every clergyman. The close correspondence of this version with the 
O!1 Testament now in use shows that it must have been a faithful 
translation, and that the Jewish Scriptures existed in that day substan- 
tially as we have them now. 

It farther appears that some years previous to the Babylonian captiv- 
ity, the Samaritans procured a copy of the Pentateuch in Hebrew, 
which they always afterward religiously observed. Now it is evident, 
from the fixed enmity always existing between the Jews and Samari- 
tans, that from the time they both had a copy of the Pentateuch, each 
claiming their own to be the genuine writing of Moses, neither party 
could have altered it without being detected by the other; and the 
enmity between the two is a sure guarantee that they never consented 
together to perpetrate upon themselves a fraud which they viewed with 
the deepest abhorrence. Hence the agreement of both these copies with 
each other, and with the Pentateuch, as we now have it, shows conclu- 
sively that this very important portion of the Jewish Scriptures has 
not been corrupted since that period. And this brings us to a point of 
time only three or four centuries subsequent to the giving of the law. 
He who can believe that these Scriptures, in view of the circumstances 
under which they were given, could have either been materially altered 
or passed upon the Jews as their divinely-authorized laws, which they 
had ever revered and kept as such, when they had never known any 
thing of them before, is certainly able to shape his faith to his notion, 
irrespective of evidence. 

When we look at the solemn circumstances under which the law was 
delivered, and the sacred injunction given by Moses to the Levites, 
“Take the book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be for a witness against 
thee;” when we remember that this law professes to contain, not only 
the civil code, but the religious ritual of that people, adopted and put 
in operation at the very time when first given; nothing can be clearer 
than the conclusion, that if it was not given by Moses, and received by 
the people, at the time and under the circumstances as detailed in the 
book itself, it never could have been imposed upon them at any subse 


Ch. vi} AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 583 


quent age; and this is true, not only in reference to the Pentateuch, but 
to the whole of the Jewish Scriptures. The Jews have ever professed 
to have received them as divinely authorized from the very day in which 
they were first delivered by their reputed authors. Of course they could 
not have been foisted upon them as such by an impostor in any subse- 
quent day. Hence we conclude that the genuineness and authenticity 
of the Old Testament is established beyond the possibility of a reason- 
able doubt. . 

If farther evidence upon this subject were at all needed, we have it, 
in the most conclusive shape, in that direct and positive sanction which 
Christ and his apostles gave to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
They everywhere referred to them as the authoritative word of God. 
We will not here pause to quote particularly their testimony to this 
effect, as we shall present it in another connection. It is enough now 
to say, that no man can admit the divine mission of Christ and_ his 
apostles, and consistently question that the Old Testament, as we now 
have it, is the inspired word of God. Though our Saviour repeatedly 
reproved the Jews for neglecting and misconstruing the Scriptures, yet 
he never once intimated that they had corrupted or interpolated the 
sacred word. Hence the evidence is conclusive, that the Old Testa- 
ment, as then in use among the Jews, was genuine and authentic; and 
if so, we are bound to accord the same divine authority to that volume, 
as now in our possession. 

Deny this divine authority to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
and what must be the result? The very world we inhabit, with its myri- 
ads of intelligent beings swarming upon its surface, would resemble some 
lost vessel drifting wildly upon the broad ocean, having lost her rudder 
and compass, her log-book and reckoning; so that no one aboard could 
tell from what port he set sail, to what point of the compass he was 
drifting, or to what haven he was bound. Even so, deny the authen- 
ticity of that time-honored record; demolish, by a puff of sarcasm, that 
Heaven-attested and Heaven-preserved scroll laid up by the side of the 
ark; extinguish, by a blast of infidel sneer, that luminary lifted up in 
the wilderness by the hand of Moses, and as the anxious inquirer as- 
cends the stream of time, passing through centuries, in search for the 
birtl. >f creation and the origin of our race, a darkness, thick as that 
of Egypt, settles upon his vision, and he is lost amid the Cimmerian 
clouds. ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness”—a type of 
the Saviour of the world elevated upon the cross for the salvation of 
all who will look to him by faith—even so did he receive from the hand 
and from the mouth of God the “tables of stone” and “the book of 


584 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Poti. BOL 


’ 


the law,” whose principles of eternal and immutable truth are des- 
tined to triumph over the ravages of time, and enlighten and warm 
with their effulgent beams the most benighted regions and the latest 
generations of earth. The Pentateuch of Moses, like “the burning 
bush” on Mount Horeb, though ever enveloped in the flames of perse- 
eution, remains, and shall forever remain, “unconsumed.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VI. 


Question 1. What four things are claim- pealed to, as proving that Moses 
ed for the Scriptures, as to their |” wrote the Pentateuch ? 
authority ? 9. What Egyptian authors testified that 
2. What does each of these terms imply ? Moses was the author of these 
3. Have authors been harmonious in writings? What Greeks? What 
the use of these terms? Romans? 
4. Do genuineness and authenticity im- | 10, How may the genuineness and 
ply inspiration ? authenticity of these books be 
5. To what then do they amount? proved internally ? 


6. By what mode of argument are the | 11. What is Mr. Leslie’s argument ? 


genuineness and authenticity of | 12. How is it proved that our Old Tes- 
the Scriptures established ? tament is the same originally 
7. Have the writings of Moses ever been iven the Jews? 
§ 8 


attributed to any other author? 13. What testimony is giver. on the sub 
8. What sources of evidence are ap- ject by Christ and his apostles? 


Ch. vii.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. &85 


CHAPTER VII. 


AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES—GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY 
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 


THE volume comprising the history of the establishment of Chris- 
tianity and the doctrines and institutions of the Christian Church, and 
for which Christians have ever claimed a divine origin, is styled the 
New Testament. In reference to this volume there are two important 
questions which we propose now to consider, viz.: 

1. How may we satisfy ourselves that we have in the New Testa- 
ment the proper canon, or the duly authorized books that should be 
included in this volume? 

2. By what evidence may it be shown that the writings of the New 
Testament are genuine and authentic? 

1, The question—What books ought to be embraced in the New 
Testament as canonical ?—is mainly an historical one, and can only be 
answered by the same kind of evidence by which we determine the 
genuineness and authenticity of those writings. The Roman Catholics 
assert the infallibility of the Church, and then appeal to her decision 
as the only authority on the subject. Thus it is plain that they reason 
in “a circle.” By this glaring sophism they prove the Scriptures by the 
Church, and the Church by the Scriptures—that is, they prove by the 
infallibility of the Church what books are Scripture, and then by the 
testimony of Scripture that the Church is infallible. 

Some Protestants, drifting to an opposite extreme, rely altogether on 
internal evidence. Both these methods of settling the canon are liable 
to the same objection; indeed, they both effectually unsettle the canon. 
According to the Roman Catholic plan, we can never certainly knou 
what the Scriptures are, for their same infallible guide may decide one 
way to-day and another way to-morrow; and then what is author. 
ized Scripture at one time might not be such at another. But if we 
rely solely on internal evidence, this would be ever liable to vary, for in 
this kind of testimony scarcely two minds will judge alike. What may 
be very satisfactory to some, may not be so to others. 


586 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 


The only true way of determining what books belong to the New 
Testament revelation is to appeal to the general consent of the early 
Fathers who lived nearest to the apostles. It is a mere question of fact 
in reference to which they were in a condition to be well informed, and 
could not have been generally deceived ; and it is very certain that no 
subsequent testimony can set aside or be as conclusive as the general 
consent of the Fathers and of the whole Christian Church in the age 
immediately succeeding the apostles. 

A learned author has presented the following rule on this subject. 
viz.: 

“Every book is genuine which was esteemed genuine by those who 
lived nearest to the time when it was written, and by the ages following, 
in a continued series.” 

It must be admitted that there is no other rational mode of settling 
a question of this nature; and where this testimony is full and harmo- 
nious, it must result in conviction beyond the possibility of a reasonable 
doubt. The genuineness and authenticity of the books of the New 
Testament are sustained by a weight of testimony more full and satis- 
factory than can be claimed for any other production of any-age half 
so remote from our times. 

The testimony of the Church confers no authority on the writings of 
the New Testament, but is only of use as it tends to establish the fact 
as to what books were written by the apostles; hence the canon of 
Scripture is not ascertained by the decision of any bishop or pope, or 
by the vote of any council, but by the settlement of the authorship of 
the books in question. 

On this subject, although the witness of Jews and pagans is of great 
corroborative force, yet the testimony of the early Christians is far the 
most conclusive and satisfactory, for they were in a situation to know 
the facts in the case. It is not important when or by whom these books 
were collected into one volume, and called the New Testament; all that 
is essential is, to be assured that they were written by the inspired apos- 
tles and evangelists. But this will be most clearly shown by the exami- 
nation of the second question proposed. 

2. By what evidence may it be shown that the writings of the New 
Testament are genuine and authentic? 

We ask: How do we know that the writings of Herodotus, Livy, 
Tacitus, Pliny, Milton, Blackstone, or any other author of any past age, 
are genuine? The answer is obvious; and in reference to any other 
authors, except the sacred writers, we have little or no controversy. We 
inquire: What has been the testimony of those who lived nearest to the 


Ch. vii. AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 587 


time of these authors, and of the ages following, in a continued s ries? 
If we find a general concurrence of testimony in this line all attributing 
the work in question to the same author, or to him whose name it bears, 
the point is as well established as any historic question can be, and 
should command our ready assent. If we receive not such testimony, 
we must doubt all history: we must not only doubt the genuineness 
and authentivity of all the writings of Greece and Rome, but also of 
the histories «f Hume and Gibbon, and of the writings of Locke and 
Bacon, of Baxter and Stillingfleet. 

Let us now look at the evidence of this kind in favor of the Nev 
Testament. 

In the first place we remark, there is no counter testimony leading us 
to suspect the genuineness and authenticity of these books. It cannot 
be shown that any one, in the period in which these works first appeared, 
questioned their authenticity and genuineness: no records of that day 
tend to impugn these writings as spurious—no long time elapsed after 
these writers in which these books were unknown, but they are referred 
to by contemporary authors—no facts are in them recorded contradicted 
by authentic records, or not synchronizing with their times; hence it 
may be asserted that there is no opposing evidence to disprove the gen- 
uineness and authenticity of the New Testament. 

As the quotations from the New Testament, and reference to the 
various books it contains, are so numerous in all ages of the Church, 
from the present up to the fourth century, we deem it useless to trace 
the evidence through that period. It will be admitted by deists them- 
selves, that, if these writings are not genuine, they could not have been 
foisted upon the Church subsequently to the fourth century; therefore 
we commence our investigation at that chronological point. 

In the fourth century we have no less than ten distinct catalogues of 
the books of the New Testament. Six of these correspond perfectly 
with the books of our present New Testament, viz., that of Athanasius 
in the year 315, Epiphanius in 370, Jerome in 392, Rufinus in 390, 
Augustin in 394, and that of forty-four bishops, at the third Coun- 
cil of Carthage, in 397. Of the other four catalogues—those of Cyril, 
Bishop of Jerusalem, in 340; of the bishops at the Council of Laodicea, 
in 364; and of Gregory, Bishop of Constantinople, in 875—all corre- 
spond with our books, except that they omit the book of Revelation; 
and in a list by Philaster, Bishop of Brescia, in 380, the Epistle to the 
Hebrews and the book of Revelation are omitted, though he elsewhere 
acknowledges both these books. Thus it seems that even if we admit at 
this period a doubt as to the authenticity of one or two books, they are 


588 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B 


such as not to affect the truth of the gospel history or the doctrines of 
Christianity; but any one who desires to do so, may easily satisfy himself, 
by consulting our numerous able authors who have written expressly 
on the canon of Scripture, that the evidence for the two books omitted 
in one or two of the lists given places their authenticity on as firm a 
footing as that of the other books. 

From these catalogues alone, it is evident that in the fourth century 
the Scriptures of the New Testament not only then existed as we have 
them now, but their authenticity was generally acknowledged by the 
Church, Numerons quotations from the Fathers of this century to the 
same effect might be given, but we deem it needless to say more, except 
to refer to the witness of Eusebius, in his well-known history. 

In the third century, Arnobius and Lactantius in Africa, and Vie- 
torinus in Germany, wrote commentaries on parts of the New Testa- 
ment, and made extensive quotations from them; but the most impor- 
tant testimony of this century is that of Origen, who wrote commentaries 
on all the Scriptures, considering them as the acknowledged revelation 
of God, and embodying a catalogue of the books of the New Testament 
precisely as now in our possession. Various other writers in this cen- 
tury: 
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage; Caius Romanus, Hippolytus Portuensis, 
Ammonius, and Julius Africanus—extensively quoted from and referred 
to most of the books of the New Testament. 

Tertullian, of the second century, bears the most indubitable testi- 
mony to the authenticity of the New Testament. His writings are 
filled with long quotations from all the books of the New Testament, 
except the Epistle of James, the Second Kpistle of Peter, and the 
Second and Third Epistles of John. But, as he did not profess to give 
a complete catalogue, his silence is no evidence against a book he has not 
named. Farther, he expressly affirms that, when he wrote, “the Chris- 
tian Scriptures were open to the inspection of all the world, both Chris- 
tian and heathen, without exception.” 

In addition to Tertullian, might be named—in the second century— 
Clement, of Alexandria ; Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch ; Athenagoras, 
a converted philosopher of Athens; and Trenzeus, Bishop of Lyons; 
who all (but especially Clement and Trenzeus) quoted extensively from 
the books of the New Testament, referring to them as of divine author- 
ity with all Christians. What adds weight to the testimony of Irenzens 
is the fact that he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of St. 
John. Though he gives no complete catalogue of all the books, yet he 
mentions the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the 


Gregory, Bishop of Cesarea; Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria; 


Ch. vii.| AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 5Ra 


Romans, the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colo sians, 
the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, the two Epistles to 
Timothy, the Epistle to Titus, the two Epistles of Peter, and the First 
and Second Epistles of John. In another place he has quoted the 
Epistle of James, and has also borne clear testimony to the book of 
Revelation. He farther mentions “the code of the New Testament as 
well as the Old,” and calls the one as well as the other “ The Oracles of 
God, and Writings dictated by his Word and Spirit.” 

Not detaining with Melito, Bishop of Sardis—Hegesippus, a converted 
Jew—and Tatian, a converted pagan philosopher—who, in the second cen- 
tury, bore favorable testimony to the authenticity of the most important 
portions of the New Testament, we close the evidence from this century 
with the witness of Justin Martyr. He was one of the most learned 
men of his day. He wrote extensively, but only his two Apologies for 
the Christians, addressed to the emperors, and senate, and people of 
Rome, and his Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, have reached us. 
Before his conversion he was familiar with the various systems of pagan 
philosophy. In his writings he quotes extensively from the four Gos- 
pels, which he represents as a genuine and authentic record of Jesus 
Christ and his doctrine. He terms them “Christ’s Memoirs,” “ Memoirs 
of the Apostles,” etc. He farther testifies that the “Memoirs of the 
Apostles,” etc., were read and expounded in the public service of the 
Christian Churches. He also expressly names, as sacred writings of the 
Christians, the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, and Colossians, the Second Epistle to the Thessalo- 
nians, the Epistle of Peter, and the book of Revelation, which, he says, 
“was written by John, one of the apostles of Christ.” 

Ascending now to the first century, our next witnesses are the A pos- 
tolic Fathers, as they are termed, or those Christian writers who were 
contemporary with the apostles. These are five in number—Barnabas, 
Clement, Hermas, Ignatius,and Polycarp. The first and second named 
were co-laborers with St. Paul; and Hermas was also his contemporary, 
and is mentioned by him in the sixteenth chapter of his Epistle to the 
Romans. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch A.D. 70, and suffered mar- 
tyrdom near the beginning of the second century. Polycarp, the 
immediate disciple of the Apostle John, was by him appointed Bishop 
of Smyrna: he also was martyred near the middle of the second cen- 
tury. 

Although these Fathers have none of them professed to give a list of 
the New Testament writings, yet their testimony is very important. 
Instructed, as they had been, from the lips of the inspire] apostles, and 


590 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ae BS 


that through a companionship of years, they could not be mistaken im 
any of the leading facts and principles of Christianity as taught by the 
prime ministers of our blessed Lord. Their positions and writings, 
and the martyrdom with which several of them were crowned, suffi- 
ciently indorse their intelligence and integrity. These early Fathers, 
contemporary with the generation who witnessed the wonderful events 
of New Testament notoriety, have quoted and referred to the Acts of 
the Apostles, several of the Gospels, and most of the Epistles, styling 
them the “Scriptures,” the “Sacred Scriptures,” or “The Oracles of the 
Lord.” Their manner of quoting and referring to these books is not 
only evidence that these works, corresponding with our present New 
Testament, were then extant throughout the Christian Church, but that 
their authenticity was not questioned. They were read everywhere in 
Uhristian assemblies, and reverenced as the revelation of God. 

It is farther clear that some of the New Testament writings were 
quoted by contemporary apostles themselves. The Apostle Peter refers 
to the “ Epistles” of his “beloved brother Paul,” recognizing them as 
a portion of the “Scriptures.” 

As evidence that these writings were not only published in Judea at 
this early day, but that they were extensively circulated throughout 
the Roman Empire, we refer to the fact that these witnessing Fathers 
resided in places remote from each other. Clement lived in Rome, 
Ignatius and Theophilus in Antioch, Polycarp in Smyrna, Justin Mar- 
tyr in Syria, Irenseus in France, Athenagoras in Athens, Origen in 
Alexandria, Tertullian in Carthage, Eusebius at Cesarea, and Augus- 
tin at Hippo. “ Philosophers, rhetoricians, and divines—men of acute- 
ness and learning—all concur to prove that the books of the New 
Testament were equally well known in distant countries, and received 
as authentic by men who had no intercourse with one another.” 
(Horne’s Introduction.) 

Again, it is a fact well known that, during the first centuries of the 
Christian era, the Christian Church was infested with numerous here- 
sies. The leaders of those erratic sects were generally learned and 
acute, and familiarly conversant with the philosophy and_ polemic 
divinity of their day. Although the writings of the New Testament 
were often palpably against these heretics, and they were thereby 
tempted to pervert and interpolate certain books, and to reject others 
which plainly condemned their errors, yet they never ventured to deny 
the existence of those writings, or that they were written by the persons 
whose names they bear. For illustration, Cerinthus, a contemporary 
of the Apostle John, was a Judaizing teacher, maintaining the neces 


Oh. vii.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 591 


sity of circumcision and the observance of the Mosaic law im the 
Christian Church; but because the Epistles of St. Paul were so 
directly antagonistic to his doctrines, Cerinthus and his followers denied 
that Paul was a divine apostle. But this fact not only proves that these 
Epistles of Paul then existed, but that they were held as of divine 
authority by the great body of the Church, who used them as such in 
their controversy against Cerinthus. As affirmed by Dr. Lardner: 
“Noetus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcellus, Photinus, the Nova- 
tians, Donatists, Manicheans, Priscilianists, besides Artemon, the 
Audians, the Arians, and divers others, all received most or all of the 
same books of the New Testament which the Catholics or great body 
of the Church received, and agreed in the same respect for them, as 
being written by apostles, or their disciples and companions.” 

Another evidence of the genuineness and authenticity of the New 
Testament is derived from the fact that, at an early day, these writ- 
ings were translated into other languages. The Syriac, and one or 
more Latin versions, were made as early as the commencement of the 
second century. Now, as these versions are still extant, and correspond 
with our copies of the original, it follows that these sacred writings not 
only existed at that early period, but that the New Testament, as we now 
have it, is a genuine production of the apostolic age—in other words, 
these sacred records, as now read throughout the world, in nearly a hun- 
dred different languages, are the identical Scriptures which, in less than 
one century from the death of Christ, were read extensively throughout 
the East in the Syriac, and throughout Europe and Africa in the Latin 
language; hence, if these writings have been surreptitiously foisted 
upon the Church, it could not have been done subsequently to that 
period, but the fraud must have been perpetrated at an age so near the 
birthday of Christianity as to render the success of so silly and wicked 
an attempt a moral impossibility. 

In conclusion, on this point we call attention to the testimony fur- 
nished by the adversaries of Christianity. The most prominent of 
these, during the second, third, and fourth centuries, were Celsus, Por- 
phyry, Hierocles, and Julian. 

Celsus was a learned philosopher, who flourished in the latter part 
of the second century. 

Porphyry wrote about the middle of the third century, and was prob- 
ably one of the ablest and most severe writers that ever wielded a pen 
against Christianity. He was well versed in philosophy and _ politics. 
He had doubtless read the New Testament, and had made himself wel! 
acquainted with both Syriac and Greek literature. 


592 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 1, 


Hierocles, another learned antagonist, appeared against the Christians 
about the commencement of the fourth century. He gave evidence of 
familiar acquaintance with the New Testament, referring both to the 
Gospels and the Epistles, and never questioning their genuineness and 
authenticity. : 

Next on the arena, and the last we shall name, appears Julian, the 
apostate emperor. He ascended the imperial throne, as successor to 
Constantine the Great, in the year 361. He immediately renounced 
Christianity, and wrote with great zeal and virulence against it. 

This formidable array of infidel philosophers, in their bold and ran- 
corous assault upon Christianity, were firmly met and triumphantly 
vanquished by the learned Christian divines of that day. Origen, 
Eusebius, Augustin, Jerome, Cyril, and others, came forth in due time 
with masterly defenses of Christianity. From this controversy the most 
unanswerable arguments may be deduced in favor of the genuineness 
and authenticity of the New Testament. Nearly all the books of this 
volume, as we now have them, were repeatedly referred to and exten- 
sively quoted, not only by the Christian Fathers, but by the above- 
named champions of infidelity. In this controversy, let it be distinctly 
noted, that no one of the combatants on either side ever so much as 
raised a question concerning the genuineness and authenticity of one 
single book of the New Testament. Now, we ask, what more indubita- 
ble evidence on the subject in hand can be demanded than is here fur- 
nished? Can it be supposed that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the apostolic Epistles, were not 
the genuine productions of the authors to whom they were ascribed, and 
that the very remarkable and numerous facts and events therein 
recorded and said to have taken place publicly, in the presence often 
of thousands of all classes, of both sexes, and of both friends and 
adherents, and foes and Opponents, of the parties reporting them—can 
it be supposed that these were not real historic records, but fictitious 
stories, cunningly-devised fables, wickedly-invented falsehoods, or base 
forgeries, and yet, how passing strange! that these learned philosophers, 
living in the very age and countries in which these things must have pub- 
licly transpired, or these fictitious stories have been surreptitiously foisted 
upon the people—can it be that all these things could have occurred, 
and these learned and bitter enemies of Christianity not been able to 
detect the cheat? Or can we suppose that they knew it all, and yet 
—while laboring with all their might to crush the hated superstition— 
they never urged, but forgot to name, the very facts which would have 
accomplished so effectually their cherished object of over‘urning Chris 


- eee 


Ch. vii.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 598 


tianity? He who can believe this, is a fit companion for lunatics or 
madmen ! 

Is it not undeniable that, if the history of Jesus, as given by 
the Evangelists and the other New Testament writings, were not gen- 
uine and authentic, Celsus, who wrote only a little over a century 
after Christ, must have known it? But he gives no such intimation— 
he hints no such plea; but he goes to work to ridicule and oppose the 
Christian religion, admitting all the essential facts of the evangelical 
record, and referring to them again and again as authentic history, 
almost in the very words of the Gospels. Had it been in his power to 
set aside these Gospel histories, either by showing that they were not 
written by the apostles of Christ, as they assume to have been, or that 
they contain false statements—that the events did not take place as 
therein recorded—would he not most gladly have done so? How easy 
would it have been for him to deny that “Jesus lived but a few 
years previous to his day; that the wise men came to worship him ; that 
Herod massacred the children; that Jesus healed the sick, and the 
lame, and raised the dead; that he was baptized by John, and that the 
Holy Ghost descended upon him like a dove; that he foretold his own 
sufferings and resurrection; that he was betrayed and forsaken by his 
own disciples; that he was crowned with thorns, and a robe put upon 
him; that he drank the vinegar and the gall; that he was scourged 
and crucified ; that he was seen by his disciples after his resurrection, 
and showed them his hands that were pierced!” How easily might 
Celsus have denied these accounts, had he suspected the genuineness 
and authenticity of the records! But he expressly mentions and admits 
all these facts! 

How easily might Porphyry, in the middle of the third century, and 
Julian in the fourth, have denied the existence or the authenticity of the 
books of the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles, had they not known 
that they existed, or had they questioned their genuineness or authentic- 
ity! But they quote them freely as genuine and authentic records. As 
said by Lardner, “Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian, bear a fuller and 
more valuable testimony to the books of the New Testament, and to the 
facts of the evangelical history, and to the affairs of Christians, than all 
our other witnesses besides, ‘They proposed to overthrow the arguments 
for Christianity: they aimed to bring back to Gentilism those who 
had forsaken it, and to put a stop to the progress of Christianity by 
the farther addition of new converts; but in those designs they had 
very little success in their own times, and their works, composed and 
published in the early days of Christianity, are now a testimony in 

28 


504 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 


our favor, and will be of use in the defense of Christianity to the 
latest ages.” 

When we think of the extensive learning and acknowledged acute 
ness of these renowned apostles of infidelity—when we reflect that they 
lived in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles—when we look 
at the many considerations leading to the conviction that they could 
not have been imposed upon as to the genuineness and authenticity of 
the New Testament Scriptures—when we remember how determined 
and inveterate were their malice and opposition, and how untiring their 
efforts to subvert Christianity, and yet that they never dreamed of ques- 
tioning that these books were written by the persons to whom they 
were ascribed, or that they contained an honest and faithful statement 
of real events as they occurred—when we look at all these facts, we 
almost blush for the arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity of those 
modern infidels, who have stigmatized these sacred books as fictions or 
forgeries. Let them first prove that all history of all nations is an 
illusive cheat; that Homer never sung in Greece; that Cesar never 
reigned in Rome, and that Cromwell never rebelled in Ergland—till 
then, let them not think of denying, without the blush of s! ame, the 
genuineness and authenticity of the New Testament. 


Ch. vii.) 


QUESTIONS ON 


Question 1. What two important ques- 


2. 


3. 


we 


So 


tions are considered in reference to 
the New Testament? 
How may it be proved that we have 
the correct canon of Scripture? 
How do the Roman Catholics prove 
the canon? 


- What erroneous plan do some Prot- 


estants adopt on this subject? 


. How is the absurdity of both plans 


shown? 


- What is the only true plan on the 


subject? 


- What important rule on the subject 


has been laid down? 


. The testimony of what class of per- 


sons is most satisfactory on this 
qxestion ? 

Is the testimony of Jews and pagans 
of any force whatever? 

By what kind of evidence may it 
be shown that the writings of the 
New Testament are genuine and 
authentic? 


’ 


AUTHORITY OF ‘THE SCRIPTURES. 


596 


CHAPTER VII. 


11 


12. 


13. 


nae 


15. 


16. 


iy 


20. 


21 


Has any counter testimony been 
presented ? 

At what century does the author 
commence the testimony ? 

What catalogues of the fourth cen- 
tury are referred to? 

What historian of this century is 
referred to? 

What testimony of the third cen- 
tury is presented? What of the 
second? 

What testimony is referred to in the 
first century ? 

What evidence is furnished by the 
heretics ? 


. What evidence is derived from tie 


fact that translations were made 
of the New Testament? 


- What testimony is furnished by the 


adversaries of Christianity ? 
By whom were these apostles of in- 
fidelity met and vanquished? 
W2at important admission did these 
<fidels make? 


oye ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. bp ivtiied ae 


CHAPTER VIII. 


AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES—INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED WRI 
TERS—THE SENSE IN WHICH IT SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD. 


In what sense are the Scriptures divinely inspired? It is a matter 
of importance that we be able properly to answer this question. 

We may remark that the general belief on this subject was very har- 
monious in the Christian Church during the first and purest ages of 
her history. Until about the middle of the sixth century, we read of 
none, except notorious heretics, who disputed the plenary inspiration of 
the Scriptures. About that time, Theodore of Mopsuestia, a philosophi- 
cal theologian, advocated some very loose and heterodox notions on 
the subject of inspiration. 

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, some of the Jewish Talmud- 
ists, who had become deeply imbued with the Aristotelian philosophy, 
began, after the fashion since adopted by some modern Christian divines, 
to classify different parts of Scripture under different degrees of inspira: 
tion. Maimonides numbered as many as eleven different degrees of 
inspiration. Gaussen testifies that ‘the modern German school of the 
adversaries of inspiration is but a reproduction of the rabbins of the 
thirteenth century.” In the sixteenth century, Socinus and his follow- 
ers assailed the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, asserting that the 
sacred writers sometimes failed, in memory, and were liable to error in 
some of their statements. 

In more modern times, Germany has been a hot-bed of infidelity m 
this insidious guise. 

About a century ago Semler went so far as to renounce inspiration 
almost entirely, denying all prophecy, and explaining every miracle as 
an allegory. Afterward Ammon, Paulus, Eichhorn, DeWette, Huc, 
Michaelis, LeClere, Rosenmiiller, Coleridge, Morell, Schleiermacher, 
Renan, and a host of others, have followed on the same trail. 

It has already been shown that Christ and his apostles not only 
claimed to speak with authority from God themselves, but also fully 
accredited the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old Testa: 


Sh. viii.) AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 597 


ment, We now proceed more specifically to define the sense in which 
this inspiration should be understood. 

1. Inspiration is so full and complete that the sacred writers are not 
the real authors of the books they penned. They, as it were, disappear, 
and God supplies their place; that is, the Scriptures are the word of 
God as really as were the “Ten Commandments,” which were written 
by his own finger. In the one case God chose to write with his own 
finger, and in the other case he selected the sacred writers—Moses, 
Isaiah, Daniel, John, Peter, Paul, and others—as his amanuenses ; but 
in both cases it is really God’s writing—God’s book—God’s word. 
Every Christian knows and feels that in reading the Bible, while Isaiah, 
David, or Paul may be the organ of utterance, the word is from the 
mouth of God—it is God who speaks. To God’s voice his reason bows, 
his conscience submits, and his inmost soul yields obeisance. To him 
the Bible—the Bible as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation—is a divine 
oracle. When the enrapt disciples gazed in adoring admiration u pon 
their transfigured Lord, it was the whole Christ with whose glory they 
were filled. They did not separate from his sacred person the nails on 
his fingers or the hairs on his head, and ask: What have these to do 
with his resplendent majesty? So the Christian, when he clasps the 
Bible to his bosom, does not stop to ask, Of what special use is the book 
of Esther? or What glory is there in the Chronicles? These portions of 
Scripture are but little in themselves, but, like the single bud or leaf in 
the bouquet, or the single point in the landscape, they contribute to the 
symmetry and perfection of the magnificent whole. 

2. Inspiration, in this plenary sense, is not contemplated as applying to 
the writers as a personal illumination, rendering them infallible and 
free from error, as individuals, but as a spiritual influence, guiding, 
directing, and controlling their tongues as they speak for God, or their 
pens as they write the Scriptures, so that all they thus speak or write 
shall be free from error, and just as God would have it; in a word, it 
is God speaking by, or through, the organs of John or Paul, or guiding 
his pen in every sentence, word, and letter. In the sense of édlwmina- 
tion, inspired men differ from each other “as one star differs from 
another star in glory,” or as they may have differed in taste, talents, or 
education; but in regard to inspiration, all were on a level. Some men 
were doubtless inspired on some occasions, and for special purposes, 
who were destitute of spiritual illumination, having no claims even to 
piety: instance the case of Balaam and of Caiaphas. These, though 
wicked men, were divinely inspired to utter truthful and sublime prophe: 
cies. In general, however, spiritual illumination and piety are com 


Hue ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pog Bst 


bined with mspiration in the same persons. Perhaps this union was in 
no case more forcibly exhibited than in Isaiah, John, and Paul. They 
were not only inspired to speak the truth of God, but were, in an extra- 
ordinary degree, devout and heavenly-minded; yet their writings are 
in no respect superior in authority to those of any other inspired 
author. 

8. The inspired writers were only infallible in their official capacity, 
as “chosen vessels” to bear the message of God to men; in other re 
spects, they were liable to err like other men. It matters nothing to 
us what erroneous notions Moses, Isaiah, Peter, John, or Paul may 
have entertained in relation to science, philosophy, politics, or any other 
subject, provided only that they were preserved from all error, as official 
teachers of the doctrines of God. 

4, This inspiration did not destroy their wdividuality. They were 
not used by the divine Spirit as mere machines, so as thus to blot out 
or suspend their moral agency or intellectual character; hence we 
find in the inspired writers the same variety in style and manner by 
which other authors are distinguished. Because God inspires a Jew, 
we are not to expect him to write like a Greek, nor because he in- 
spires a Greek are we to expect him to speak like a Jew; but the Jew 
will still be a Jew, and the Greek still a Greek. An illiterate fisher- 
man, though inspired, will not speak in the style of a philosopher, nor 
the inspired philosopher in the style of an unlettered peasant; but 
each, though inspired, will still maintain his individuality, and speak 
in his own peculiar style. Surely we must allow that God may select, 
as his organs for the communication of his will, men from various 
walks in life, and guide the tongue and pen of each (so that precisely 
the things he desires shall be communicated), and yet not interfere with 
the peculiar style of the person selected. So that while in one place 
Paul is the writer, and in another case Peter or John, yet, in all cases, 
the book is God’s word. 

5. But, according to the view of inspiration we have presented, it 
seems the very words, as well as the thoughts, must have been inspired, 
This is precisely the doctrine we maintain. The Bible is the “ word of 
God.” What the Bible says, God says; what the Bible declares to 
be true, is true; what it declares to be right, is right; what it declares 
tu be wrong, is wrong. What it teaches is to be believed, not on the 
xithority of Moses, of Paul, or of other inspired men, but on the 
pathority of God. The Bible is inspired, not as to ideas merely, but as 
to words also. ‘Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost.” St. Paul says: “ Which things also we speak, not in the 


Ch. viii] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES, 599 


words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth.” 
(1 Cor. ii. 18.) We confess there are difficulties connected with this 
subject. We cannot conceive or explain the method of the Spirit's 
operation, either in conversion or in inspiration: but whither shall we 
go to escape from difficulties ?— we find them everywhere and in every 
thing. It is objected that, “if the very words of Scripture are inspired, 
then there can be no human element about the matter—no diversity of 
style, or any thing of the sort.” Not so; this inference does not follow. 
Cannot God make flowers, or trees, or mountains, or stars, unless he 
makes them all alike? If he inspires different men, must they all use 
the same language, be it Hebrew or Greek? Must every musician 
always perform on an instrument of the same kind, be it flute, harp, or 
drum? Why, we ask, cannot the Spirit guide each inspired man in 
the exercise of his own peculiar powers, whatever language he may 
speak, and whatever may be his character—whether he be gentle or 
fierce, learned or illiterate, infant or adult, refined or coarse, or what- 
ever his peculiar style? 

Another objection to plenary inspiration is, that “if this doctrine 
be true, then inspired men could never err, by mistake or otherwise.” 
Hence, we are pointed, as a refutation of our doctrine, to the fact that 
Paul did not know that Caiaphas was high-priest (Acts xxiii. 5), or the 
number of persons he had baptized in Corinth (1 Cor. i. 16). If our 
position asserted infallibility as a personal attribute of the inspired 
men, then there would be some force in this objection ; but as this in- 
fallibility is only ‘affirmed of the inspired writings, not of the writers, 
the objection is quite irrelevant. The ignorance of Paul, as to the 
position of Caiaphas, or on any other point, is nothing against his plenary 
inspiration, as a sacred writer, so long as no error can be detected in 
his official teachings. It is for the writings, and not the writers, that 
infallibility is claimed. 

6. Again, we are told that many things recorded by the sacred pen- 
men were merely a recital of events that came under their own personal 
knowledge, and with which they were perfectly familiar—surely, it is 
urged, they needed no inspiration on these subjects; and as God’s 
doings are never superfluous, we cannot suppose that in such cases the 
writers were inspired. Now, we demand, since the larger portion of 
the Bible is historical, and a great part of that history is recorded by 
men who had personal knowledge of the events they relate, must we 
not set aside, according to this objection, an important part of the Bible 
as a mere human production? Look at the history of the Israelites 
by Moses; but, above all, at the history of Jesus by the evangelists 


600 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 1. 


Are these sacre | records all to be classed as merely human? The very 
thought is revolting to the Christian heart. Admitting that Matthew, 
Mark, I.uke, and John, had been eye-witnesses of many of the wonder- 
ful works of Jesus, and had listened to his many admirable sayings and 
discourses, and had drunk in with their own ears the heavenly , recepts 
that fell from his lips, how preposterous the idea of depending on mem- 
ory, after a lapse of years, for a record of these things! How could 
they, under these circumstances, remember so many events, so as to 
record them precisely as they occurred? How could they recall 30 
many discourses, many of which they did not themselves comprehend 
at the time, so as to record them in the Saviour’s exact language? It 
is utterly impossible. And even if they could, how could they distin- 
guish what ought to be written from what ought to be omitted? Inspir- 
ation—plenary inspiration—was net ded at every step—at every chapter, 
sentence, and word. It was needed to teach them what to write, and 
what not to write—to teach them how to write, and when to write—tc 
teach them the thoughts to express, and the proper words to express 
those thoughts. It was needed for their own sake, to enable them to 
write as they did, and for the sake of the Church and the world, in all 
coming time, to give divine authority to the sacred record. 

Abstract the idea of the inspiring Spirit guiding the pen of the sacred 
writer in every sentence, word, and letter, from the holy Gospels, and 
the heavenly unction—the divine power—of the book is gone. It is no 
longer the record of Heaven we trace—no longer the voice of God we 
hear. The Shekinah has left the mercy-seat; the divine sacrifice ceases 
to smoke upon the altar, and the glory has departed from the Christian 
temple. 

But a truce forever to all conjecture and reasoning upon this great 
question, Our Saviour shall settle it himself. He has long ago settled 
it, and the Church for centuries has confided with satisfaction in his 
decision ; and with this decision may her faith never be shaken by the 
assaults of skepticism! It reads thus: “But the Comforter, which is 
the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I 
have said unto you.” John xiv. 26. 

7. From what has neen presented, we may clearly infer that all that 
has been said by certain divines concerning some parts of Scripture 
being inspired, and other parts not inspired, is not only without author- 
ity, but is manifestly repugnant to the Scripture view of the subject. 
The claim of inspiration made by the sacred writers refers, not to one 
portion of Scripture alone, but to every portion alike. The Bible 


Ch. vi.) AUTHURITY OF TIE SCRIPTURES. 601 


doctrine is, that not a part of Scripture, but “AW Seripture, is given 
by inspiration of God.” 2 Tim. iii. 16. 

If the Old Testament was inspired, so was the New, and vic2 versa. 
If the prophetical part was inspired, so was the historical, the didactic, 
and all the rest. There is no restriction, limitation, or exception, in 
these words of Christ: “And the Scripture cannot be broken;” (John 
x. 35;) nor in the words of Peter: “Holy men of God spake as they 
were moved by the Holy Ghost ;” (2 Pet. i. 21;) nor in these words of 
St. Paul: “Not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which 
the Holy Ghost teacheth ;” (1 Cor. ii. 13;) nor yet in these words of 
Jesus: “ He will guide you into all truth.” (John xvi.13.) This divid- 
ing of the sacred word in portions inspired, and portions not inspired, 
finds no word, or even hint, to favor it in all the Bible. Nor can it 
finl any support in the primitive and purer ages of the Church. It is 
an invention of later times—it isa brood that was hatched amid the 
humid atmosphere of the dark ages, and has been new baptized in the 
muddy waters of modern rationalistic philosophy. 

Nor is it much better—as some divines having higher claims to ortho- 
doxy have done—to attempi to classify the different claims of inspira- 
tion. Thus, we are told of an inspiration of “superintendence,” another 
of “elevation,” and another of “suggestion.” Now, if by this division 
nothing was implied but the simple fact that superintendence, elevation, 
and suggestion, are three important elements of inspiration in general, 
each entering more or less into every case of divine inspiration, these 
divisions would not only be harmless, but appropriate; but this is mani- 
festly not the sense in which they are intended. As used by those 
who have adopted them, one scripture is supposed to be given by the 
inspiration of superintendence, another by that of elevation, and another 
by that of suggestion—thus, we are told that “Moses could record, 
without a divine afflatus, the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage 
and the history of their journeyings toward the promised 'and: so 
Sol mon could remark that ‘A soft answer turneth away wrath, but 
grievous words stir up anger;’ or that ‘ Better is a dinner of herbs where 
love is, than a stailed ox and hatred therewith.” “In such cases as 
these,” we are informed, “no supernatural influence was required to 
enlighten the mind of the writers’—that is, in all the wonderful 
record of the deliverance of God’s people from their bondage in Egypt, 
and in all the eventful history of a “forty years’” journey from Egypt 
to Palestine, and in the best of the excellent Proverbs of Solomon, 
“no supernatural influence was required to enlighten the mind of the 
writers.” 


602 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [LE aense 


Inspiration by “elevation,” we are informed, “denotes that divine 
influence by which the mental faculties of the sacred writers, though 
acting in a natural way, were raised and invigorated to an extraordi- 
nary degree, so that their compositions were more truly sublime, noble, 
and pathetic, than what they could have produced merely by the force 
of their natural genius.” 

“Suggestion” is said to be “the highest degree of inspiration,” and 
to include “all those direct revelations which were made to the sacred 
writers, of such things as they could not have discovered by ordinary 
means.” 

It must be admitted that thus to divide inspiration—assigning one 
kind to one scripture and another kind to another scripture—is_per- 
fectly gratuitous, having nothing in Scripture itself to authorize it. 
But this is not the worst: it tends to weaken the authority of the Bible, 
and to deprive it of much of its power over the heart and conscience, 
The Christian mind has long been trained to contemplate the Bible as 
the “word of God”—not of man. In this light the whole book has 
been viewed, whether it be prose in the plainest narrative style, or poetry 
of the most sublime strain. And if it be indeed the “word of God,” 
and not the mere word of man, then it follows that every portion of it 
—each book, chapter, and verse—was given under the influence of 
plenary inspiration—an inspiration including, to some extent, all these 
elements—superintendence, elevation, and suggestion. 

Let any one of the sacred writers, in any single production of his 
pen, be supposed destitute of divine inspiration—whether in the sense 
of superintendence, elevation, or suggestion—and that portion of Serip- 
ture must at once cease to be contemplated as “God’s word:” it must 
be considered as a human production. Suppose, for instance, that we 
admit that the Mosaic history, or that of John the A postle, was only 
given by the inspiration of “superintendence”—no divine “ elevation” 
or divine “suggestion” about it, but simply the divine superintendence, 
so as to free it from all error—in what light must we then contemplate 
it? Would it not be, as to all its inherent elements, a mere human 
history? To be sure it would be a true history: of this we could have 
no doubt; but in what else could it differ from any other human his- 
tory? Now, admit that any other author had produced a history, of 
which we were perfectly assured that every word it contained was true, 
would it not in our esteem, according to this view, be as much a divine 
production as the Mosaic history or the Gospel of John? The only 
difference we could perceive would be this: that Moses and John had 
recorded nothing but the truth, aided thereto by a divine superintend 


Uh viii.] AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 608 


ence, but some one else had written a history recording nothing but the 
truth, without that divine superintendence. Surely the method by 
which the truth, and nothing but the truth, is secured, cannot change 
the character of that truth. We may select paragraphs of history from 
many profane authors—of the truth of which it is impossible for us to 
doubt—but will that fact give to these scraps of profane history a 
sacredness and authority like unto what every sentence of the Bille 
possesses? Surely not. But if any portion of the Bible histo y has 
nothing to stamp it with divinity but simply the fact that God so super: 
intended the writer as to prevent him from recording any thing but 
what was true, we cannot see what claim of divinity could pertain to 
such scripture that would not belong equally to the Principia of New- 
ton, or any human composition, concerning the entire and absolute 
truthfulness of which we could have no doubt. 

But, according to the Bible view of the doctrine of divine inspiration, 
there is a sacredness and a divine impress upon every sentence and 
word of Holy Writ infinitely beyond what any human composition can 
claim. Moses, John, and all the rest of Heaven’s chosen amanuenses, 
in every sentence of the sacred canon which they penned, were aided, 
not only by the inspiration of “superintendence,” freeing them from 
the possibility of mistake or error, but by the inspiration of “elevation” 
and “suggestion,” lifting their thoughts infinitely higher than nature’s 
pinions can soar, and causing them to clothe those thoughts in wosds 
more appropriate than human wisdom could select. And this is equatly 
manifest, whether we listen to Isaiah when he prophesies of the glo ies 
of the Messiah, or simply speaks of “the vision of Isaiah, the son of 
Amos ;” or to Paul when he speaks of the “abundance of his rev la- 
tions,” or simply of “the cloak which he left at Troas.” 

Hence we conclude that the Scriptures are all given by plenary 
inspiration, embracing throughout the elements of “superintendence, 
elevation, and suggestion,” in so high a sense that the Bible, from Gen- 
esis to Revelation, is the infallible word of God—*one jot or tittle” of 
which can never fail, but which, when heaven and earth shall pass away, 
shall still remain, enduring as the throne of Him by whose Spirit it 
was inspired. 


604 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.ai. B. 2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VIII. 


Quesrion 1. How was inspiration under- | 6. Does it admit variety ia the style cf 


stood by the primitive Christians? the sacred writers? 
2. When, and by whom, was this doc- | 7. How can this admission be reconciled 

trine opposed ? with the position that the words of 
3. By whom has it been opposed in Scripture are inspired ? 

more modern times? 8. What evil results from classifying the 
4 In what sense should inspiration be kinds of inspiration ? 

understood ? 9. Is all Scripture inspired in the ple- 
* How is this view sustained from nary sense’ 

Scriptura? 


ne 


PART AIL-EYIDENG'S. OF CHRISTIANITY: 


BOOK [1.—DIRECT EVIDENCE—EXTERNAL. 


CHAPTER IX. 
MIRACLES—DEFINITION CONSIDERED. 


THE discussions in our preceding chapters have all heen preparatory 
to the main question ; that is, they only pave the way to the more direet 
evidences by which the truth of Christianity is established. In exam- 
ining these—which we may style the evidences proper, in contradistine. 
tion from such as are only preparatory—we find that our various emi- 
nent authors have adopted different plans of classification. 

Stackhouse makes four divisions of the evidences of Christianity : 

1. The character and behavior of the person professing to deliver a 
revelation from God. 

2. The nature and tendency of his doctrine. 

3. The signs and tokens he gives of his divine commission. 

4, The success and effects of his doctrine. 

Richard Watson, following in the wake of Dr. Hill, divides the ev) 
ilences of Christianity into three classes : 

1. The External, including miracles and prophecy. 

2. The Internal, derived from the consideration of the doctrine 
taught. 

3. The Collateral, arising from a variety of cireumstances which leaw 
directly than the former, prove the revelation to be of divine authority. 

The definition this author gives of collateral evidence is too indistinet 
to be of practical use, in a subject of this kind. According to his 
definitions, it will often be difficult to distinguish his collateral from his 
external or internal evidence; but it will be quite plain that his collateral 
may always be included under his definition of external or internal evi 

(605) 


606 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


dence Hence we dismiss the collateral division, as tending more te 
perplex than to assist. 

It must not, however, be inferred, because our authors adopt 
different divisions on this subject, that they differ from each other as to 
the evidences themselves. It is true that they vary as to their mode of 
presenting the subject; and some attach most importance to one class 
if evidence, and others to another class; but there is little or no differ- 
ence as to the evidences set forth in the various systems, and especially 
is there no contrariety or opposition. 

In our classification of the evidences of Christianity we pursue that 
plan which has been the most generally adopted by our eminent authors, 
because we consider it the most natural and convenient; hence we 
will embrace these evidences in two grand divisions, viz. : 

The EXTERNAL and the INTERNAL. 

But even when we adopt this division, which we deem the most un- 
exceptionable, there is danger of allowing the two classes to interlock 
or run into each other. ‘To guard against perplexity which might arise 
from this source, we should be as clear and explicit in our definitions 
as possible, and then be careful to adhere to them in our investigations 
as strictly as the subject will admit. 

We thus define our classes : 

1. External Evidence——By this we mean all that evidence which is 
verived, not from the character of the revelation itself, but from out- 
ward facts and circumstances, which, though many of them may be re- 
corded in Scripture, yet they make not an essential part of its doctrinal 
system, and are susceptible of proof, in part, from profane history and 
collateral testimony. Under this division we embrace the evidence 
from miracles, prophecy, and the success of Christianity. 

2. Internal Evidence-—By this we mean all that evidence which is 
derived from the nature of the doctrines, the consistency of the writers, 
and effects of Christianity. Or more at large, under this division we 
embrace the evidence derived from the consistency of the different parts 
of the Bible—the eacellency of its doctrines, their accordance with human 
nature, their transforming influence upon the heart and life, and the 
internal assurance of their truth, which they, through the Spirit, impart 
to all who believe and obey them. 

We are now prepared to enter upon the consideration of the external 
evidences of Christianity. We begin with the subject of miracles. 

Among the arguments relied on for the truth of Christianity, none 
has been more prominently urged, or deemed more satisfactory and 
conclusive, than that which is founded on miracles. Fully conscious of 


Ch. ix.] MIRACLES—DEFINITION CONSIDERED. 607 


the potency of this argument, the enemies of Christianity have taxed, 
to the utmost extent, their ingenuity and skill to set aside or ward off its 
force; but with how little success, a careful, though brief, examination 
will enable us to judge. That we may see the evidence from this source 
in its true light, there are three points necessary to be closely considered 
and clearlv presented. 

The first point is the definition—we must have a clear conception of 
the character of a real miracle. 

Secondly, we propose to show that such miracles are susceptible of clear 
and satisfactory proof. 

In the third place, we propose to show that such miracles were per- 
formed, by divine interposition, in attestation of the truth of the Jewish and 
Christian revelations. 

I. We inquire, first, what is a miracle? A clear and accurate con- 
ception of the definition will prevent confusion and perplexity in the 
investigation. 

The first import of the word miracle, from the Latin miraculum, is a 
wonder, or wonderful thing. Webster defines a miracle thus: “In theol- 
ogy (a miracle is) an event or effect contrary to the established con- 
stitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of 
nature; a supernatural event.” The “New American Cyclopedia” 
defines a miracle to be “a work of divine power, interrupting (or vio- 
lating) the ordinary course of nature, and directly designed to attest 
the divine commission of him who works the miracle.” 

Chrysostom says: “A miracle is a demonstration of the divine digni- 
ty.” Augustin argues that a miracle is not against nature in its high- 
est aspect ; for “how is that against nature which comes from the will 
of God, since the will of such a great Creator is what makes the nature 
of every thing?” He adds: “In miracles, God does nothing against 
nature ; what is unaccustomed may appear to us to be against nature, 
but not so to God, who constituted nature.” 

Aquinas says: “Miracles are all things done by divine power, beside 
the order commonly preserved in the course of affairs.” 

Lord Bacon asserts: “ There never was a miracle wrought by God 
to convert an atheist, because the light of nature might have led him 
to confess a God ; but miracles are designed to convert idolaters and 
the superstitious, who have acknowledged a Deity, but erred in his ad- 
oration, because no light of nature extends to declare the will and 
worship of God.” 

Spinoza says: “A miracle signifies any work, the natural cause of 
which we cannot explain after the example of any thing else to whieb 


608 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


we are accustomed; or, at least, he who writes about or relates the 
miracle cannot explain it.” 

Miracles have been defined, “from their cause, as a work of direct 
divine energy; from their characteristics, as compared with natural 
events, as superseding or violating the ordinary laws of nature; from 
their immediate effects, as producing wonder, and an impression of the 
divine presence; and from their final cause, as designed, according to 
some, to evoke faith, and, according to others, to accredit the miracle- 
worker.” 

Horne defines a miracle to be “an effect or event contrary to the 
established constitution or course of things, or a sensible suspension or 
controlment of or deviation from the known laws of nature, wrought 
either by the immediate act, or by the assistance, or by the permission 
of God.” 

Dr. Samuel Clarke defines thus: “A miracle is a work effected ina 
manner unusual, or different from the common and regular method of 
providence, by the interposition of God himself, or of some intelligent 
agent superior to man, for the proof or evidence of some particular 
doctrine, or in attestation of the authority of some particular person.” 

From the authorities above presented, it will appear that the writers 
upon this subject have deemed a correct conception of the import of 
the term miracle a matter of importance in the discussion. The defi- 
nitions given vary bunt little in substance, except that some are more 
extended than others. The definition given by Dr. Samuel Clarke is, 
perhaps, more extended than any of the preceding, and is in perfect 
accordance with the acceptation of the term, as used by theologians 
generally ; but his definition, as also most of those we have cited, seems 
to embrace more than the term itself necessarily implies. 

If we attempt to analyze the term, it is clear that the first element in 
the import of miracle is, that it is a work of the divine power, and 
which nothing but the divine power can effect. For illustration, crea- 
tion is a work which nothing but the divine power can effect; hence 
every manifestation of creative power embraces this element of the 
miraculous. But there is another element in the definition of a mira- 
cle, and that is, that this divine power be exerted, in a way, contraven- 
ing the ordinary process of nature, or in opposition to the regularly- 
establised order of things. Now it is clear that many things are done 
by the power of God, and which nothing but the divine power can 
effect, that are not miraculous, The planets are wheeled in their orbits; 
the influence of the seasons is kept up, and the forest and the field are 
clothed with verdure and plenty; and all this by the power of God, 


Oh. ix.] MIRACLES—DEFINITION CONSIDERED. 609 


which alone is adequate to the performance of these wonders; and yet 
there is no miracle in these wonderful displays of divine energy, simply 
hecause the power is exerted according to an ordinary established plan, 
which we style the order or laws of nature. To raise a dead Lazarus 
at a word is no more an exertion of the divine power than to cause the 
sun to rise in the east; yet the one is a miracle and the other is not, 
because the one is effected by an immediate exertion of power, in an 
extraordinary way, and the other by the exertion of the same power in 
the ordinary course of nature. 

Again, although it may be true that all the miracles of Scripture 
were performed (according to Dr. S. Clarke’s definition) “for the proof 
or evidence of some particular doctrine, or in attestation of the author- 
ity of some particular person,” yet it does not appear to us that these 
circumstances are essential to the nature of a miracle. We here beg 
leave to ask, How can we certainly know that God might not perform 
a miracle for some other purpose, of which we have no conception? 
And would not the same divine act, performed out of the ordinary 
plan, or in contravention of the regular course of nature, he equally 
miraculous for whatever purpose it may have been performed? We 
think, at the outset of this discussion, the term miracle should be 
divested of all extraneous encumbrances, and taken according to its 
own essential elements. 

According, then, to our views of the import of the term, we define it 
thus: A miracle is a work of God, which nothing but divine power can 
effect, performed in contravention of the ordinary course, or the laws of 
nature. 

With this definition of a mivacle before us, we cannot question the 
validity and force of miraculous testimony. A miracle is, in effect, the 
testimony of God. It is the voice of God speaking through his mighty 
deeds. Just as we read the existence and attributes of Deity through 
the works of nature,so we may see “ the finger of God” in the miracles 
he performs. As none but God can perform miracles, according to our 
definition, and as it is absurd to suppose that God should contradict, 
or work in opposition to himself, so it necessarily follows that he can 
neither perform himself, not permit any other being to perform a mir 
acle in attestation of any thing but what he approves; and what he 
Approves must be not only true, but right and proper. Hence we con- 
elude that, if Christianity has been confirmed by real miracles, in the 
sense of our definition, it is established by evidence as satisfactory and 
convincing as the nature of the subject admits, or as any rational mind 
should demand. 


39 


610 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. in. B. 9 


We are persuaded that no intelligent deist can either doubt that God 
is able, should he please to do so, to reveal his will to man, or that he 
can confirm that revelation by the performance of miracles. Nor, so 
far as known to us, has any one questioned the validity of the evidence 
of miracles, when performed in our presence, and attested by our own 
senses, 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IX. 


‘Question 1. Have the various authors| 6. How has miracle been defined ty 
differed in the classification of the different authors ? 


evidences of Christianity ? 7. What is the correct definition ? 
2 What is the plan preferred ? 8. Can any but God, or one empowered 
3 Llow are the two classes of evidence by him, perform a real miracle ? 

defined? 9. Is the evidence of miracles conu}-2- 
4 What is the first department of ea- sive and satisfactory ? 

ternal evidence? 10. Is this evidence, when witnessed by 
“ What are the three points to be con- our own senses, generally admit 


sidered in reference to miracles? ted to be conclusive ? 


Ch. x.) MIRACLES 


HUME’S ARGUMENT. 611 


CHAPTER X. 
MERACLES—HUME’8 ARGUMENT. 


Axsout a hundred years ago, that shrewd and renowned Scotch met 
aphysician and champion of infidelity, David Hume, aiming a blow 
that would sap the foundation of Christianity, boldly advanced the theory 
that “no human testimony can have such force as to prove a miracle 
and make a just foundation for any system of religion ;” and, although 
the rottenness of this position and the sophistry by which it was advo. 
cated have been fully exposed again and again by masterly hands, yet 
it still lives in the world, and once in awhile is unblushingly paraded 
by the advocates of modern infidelity. 

Such has been the fame of Hume’s argument against miracles, that 
scarce a treatise has appeared on the evidences of Christianity, since 
the first enunciation of that gilded sophism, in which it has not been 
brought upon the arena for discussion. We here call attention to it, 
not so much from any conviction of its intrinsic force as from the fact 
that it has occupied so conspicuous a place in this controversy that no 
treatise on the question can ignore it entirely without heing viewed by 
many as incomplete. 

We briefly state the substance of Mr. Hume’s argument in his own 
words, thus: “A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a 
firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof 
against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any 
argument from experience can possibly be imagined; and if so, it is 
an undeniable consequence that it cannot be surmounted by any proof 
whatever from testimony. A miracle, therefore, however attested, can 
never be rendered credible, even in the lowest degree.” 

In considering the argument here set forth against miracles, our first 
observation is this: It is in contradiction to the dictates of common 
sense. It implies that we ought not to believe a miracle, though con- 
firmed by the most indubitable testimony of our own senses. His argu- 
ment is this: 

“A miracle is @ violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and 


612 FLEMENTS OF DIVINITY (P. ii. B. 2 


unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a 
miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument 
from experience can possibly be imagined; and if so, it cannot be sur- 
mounted by any proof whatever from testimony.” 

Omitting for the present several points in which the fallacy of this 
argument is manifest, is it not clear that it bears with equal force against 
testimony for miracles, whether it be the deposition of those who have 
witnessed them, or the direct testimony of our own senses to the fact? 
[f, as Hume asserts, a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and 
these laws are so firmly established that no argument from experience 
can possibly surmount the evidence we have of their stability, does it 
not follow, not only that a miracle is incredible on any testimony of 
others, but a.ss on the testimony of our own senses? If the laws of 
nature are so firmly proved not to be susceptible of suspension, change, 
or violation, that no evidence from experience can possibly surmount 
that proof, it is undeniable that the personal experience of our own 
senses is as fully excluded as the testimony of others. According to 
this argument, nothing can prove a miracle. It does not appear that 
Mr. Hume carried out his argument so as to assert that we ought not 
to credit our own senses, though we might, again and again, and under 
every variety of circumstances, witness with our own eyes, and ears, 
and hands, the performance of the most notable miracles; but it does 
appear, unquestionably, that his argument proves this, if it proves any 
thing at all. Indeed, this consequence is so undeniable that we think 
it could not have been repudiated by the author of the argument } im- 
self. . 

Hence we conclude that, as this argument necessarily leads us to lis- 
credit the evidence of our own senses, even when we have the n ost 
satisfactory reasons to believe that those senses can be under no illusive 
or deceptive influence, and as we can gain no knowledge of any kind, 
or from any source, in reference to which we have a firmer conviction 
that we are not deceived, than what we derive from the testimony of 
our senses, our own common sense teaches us that this argument, 
which would require us to discredit this knowledge altogether in appli- 
cation to miracles, must be fallacious, 

In the next place, the argument in question, if conclusive against the 
proof of miracles, must be equally so against every thing new, coming 
under the head of the marvelous. 

Miracles are incredible, says the argument, because they are against 
the testimony of experience. The word experience, as used by Mr. 
Hume, must mean, either our own individual experience, the experience 


Ch. x. MIRACLES—NUME’S ARGUMENT. 618 


of the whole world, or the experience of the world generally. It vould 
not have referred to the first named, for then we ought to admit noth 
ing whatever on the testimony of others—it could not mean the expe 
rience of the whole world, for there are no means of ascertaining what 
that has been; the meaning, then, must be, that miracles are contrary 
to the experience of the world generally. 

Now, is it not clear that if Iam bound to discredit all human testi- 
mony fora miracle, because no such thing has been witnessed by the 
world generally, I am under obligation to reject every thing new and 
marvelous? Let this mode of reasoning be adopted, and what must 
be the fate of ever--new discovery in science—in astronomy, geology, 
philosophy, or the arts? When any of these are for the first time 
brought forth, might not every tyro in knowledge sit in judgment upon 
them, and condemn them “without farther examination?” Might he 
not exclaim: “These are contrary to experience—who ever heard of 
them before ?—and they are not in accordance with the known laws of 
uature; hence we must reject them.” 

Thus, according to this reasoning, all extraordinary phenomena in 
nature—all uncommon efforts of memory or of genius—all the won- 
ders of magnetism, galvanism, and electricity —the newly developed 
mysteries of the telegraph—the reported descent of meteoric stones—all 
these things we must reject, if, according to this argument, our faith is 
to be circumscribed by the general experience of the world. 

If what has never been experienced is never to be believed, what 
must have been the situation of man at the beginning of the world? 
and how suddenly would the wheels of progress now cease to revolve, 
were we to admit the maxim, that every thing unknown to the experi- 
ence of the past ought to be rejected as not worthy to be believed by 
men of sense! 

We can see no good reason why miracles should not be susceptible 
of proof, as well as every other class of facts. That God is able to 
perform them, none will dispute. And what, we ask, is there in the 
character of God rendering it improbable that he should, on suitable 
occasions, thus display his power? If it be reasonable—as proved in a 
former chapter—that God should reveal his will to man, what evidence 
could be selected so direct and satisfactory, in confirmation of that reve 
lation, as the utterances of Ged in a miracle? 

Mr. Hume’s argument seems to suppose that the “laws of nature,” 
as he terms them, possess an abstract existence, and are so unbending 
in their character that, if even the divine power were capable of sus: 
vending or changing them, no evidence could be given that would jus 


614 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ie2BR2 


tity man in believing the fact. But surely this learned metaphysician 
knew that the “laws of nature” are no abstract essence. All we mean 
by the phrase is, the method by which God usually governs his creation. 
These laws are the creature of the divine will, and why may not that 
will suspend or modify them at pleasure? It is no more difficult for 
God to work a miracle than to cause the grass to grow. It is as easy 
for Him who rules over all to speak to the raging storm, “ Peace, be 
still!” and it shall instantly be calmed, as to fan the face with the 
gentle breeze. Miracles are only improbable, as they are unusual; but 
because they are not every-day occurrences, that is no reason why we 
should not accredit them when they do occur; and are sufficiently 
attested. Miracles are not contrary to the “laws of nature,” in the 
real and full sense of the word, but are only over and above those laws, 
as they appear to us. They are not so with the Deity—they are not so 
in such sense as to imply that an effect is produced without an adequate 
cause, The difference between an ordinary event and a miracle is, that 
in the former a natural cause operates, which we may perceive, and, to 
some extent, comprehend ; but in the latter a supernatural cause, whose 
operations we have not witnessed before in that way, and, though its 
presence may be known by its effects, yet the manner of its causative 
connection with the physical effect is concealed from our view, 

That miracles may be proved by human testimony, in opposition tu 
Hume’s argument, we might safely leave to the verdict of common 
sense, before any jury of intelligent, unprejudiced persons. We will 
present the case, as given by Mr. Paley in his answer to Hume’s the- 
orism, thus: “If twelve men, whose probity and good sense I had long 
known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an account 
of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it was impossible 
that they should be deceived—if the governor of the country, hearing 
a rumor of this account, should call these men into his presence, and 
offer them a short proposal, either to confess the imposture or submit 
to be tied up to a gibbet—if they should refuse with one voice to 
acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case 
—if this threat were communicated to them separately, yet with no 
different effect—if it was at last executed—if I myself saw them, one 
after another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or strangled, rather than 
give up the truth of their account—still, if Mr. Hume's rule be my 
guide, I'am not to believe them. Now I undertake to say that there 
exists not a skeptic in the world who would not believe them, or whu 
would defend such incredulity.” 

But wherein, it may be asked, consists the flaw in Mr. Hrme’s angur 


Ch. x.] MIRACLES—HUME’S ARGUMENT. 616 


ment? We reply, that his argument is mainly defective in two partic 
ulars : 

First. In pretending to balance between two experiences, measuring 
that by which the laws of nature are established, and that by which 
men’s veracity is established, against each other; whereas he is only in 
reality balancing total inexperience on the one hand, against positive 
experience on the other. 

Secondly. ‘The fallacy of the argument, as we judge, mainly consists in 
his blending together in the same category all kinds of testimony, both 
good and bad. 

We conclude our notice of his argument by a brief exhibit of these 
fallacies. 

First. We call attention to his balancing between two experiences, 
thus: He argues that we cannot prove a miracle, because it implies a 
violation of the laws of nature, and these are established by the unal 
terable experience of the world. This he would balance against our 
experience of the character of human testimony; and finding, from the 
experience in reference to the laws of nature, that they never fail or 
vary, but, from our experience in reference to human testimony, that it 
has often failed and deceived us, he concludes against the possibility of 
proving a miracle by human testimony. 

To show clearly that while he thus speaks of two opposite experi- 
ences, which he would balance against each other, he is really only bal- 
ancing experience against inexperience, we will illustrate the subject by a 
supposed case of fact. Now, admit that A is charged with having 
murdered B in the senate-chamber of the United States, at a certain 
hour of a certain day in a specified year. Twelve men depose that 
they were present at the time and place specified, and witnessed the act 
as charged. Now, we have tne certied experience of these twelve men, 
convicting A of the crime of murder. But the couusel for A propose 
that they will neutralize the evidence against their client by arraying an 
equal amount of experience acquitting him of the crime. Now, we ask, 
will it do for them to bring forward the testimony of twelve men who 
were not present at the time and place specified, but who are ready to 
depose that they never witnessed the crime charged against A? Of 
what avail would ten thousand such testimonies be against the deposi- 
tions of those who were present and witnessed the act? Is that bal- 
ancing experience against experience? Surely this negative testimony 
amounts to nothing against affirmative evidence! This is experience on 
the one hand, against inexperience on the other. 

But is it not the same kind of balance we have in the argument 


616 ELEMENT? OF DIVINITY. (Pie Bee 


against miracles? Let us examine. Twelve men depose that they saw, 
at a certain time and place, a dead man raised to life at the word of 

another, Now, if we propose to neutralize the testimony of these 

twelve witnesses, must we not do it by arraying against them twelve 
others who were present at the time and place, and saw no such 
thing? The evidence of ten thousand persons who were not present: 
at the time and place, can be of no avail. Their testimony can only 
amount to this, that they have never witnessed any thing of the kind. 
As to the fact alleged, all their experience amounts to a total inexperi- 
ence. It may be true that neither they nor any one else had ever wit- 
nessed any thing of the kind, and yet the testimony of the twelve men 
affirming to the fact, may also be true: there is no contrariety in the evi- 
dence. The inexperience of millions, who never witnessed a given fact, 
cannot neutralize the evidence of such as depose that they did witness 
it. It is the same principle, so far as the balancing of testimony is 
voncerned, whether the fact in question be miraculous or merely natu- 
ral. The testimony must stand or fall on its own merits. To assume 
that a miracle is against universal experience, is merely to beg the 
yuestion ; for that is the precise point in controversy. To set up gene 

ral experience, which can only testify that men generally have never 
witnessed such things, may answer a purpose as far as it goes; but it 
cannot affect the question at issue, since it is not contended that mira- 
cles have been common in the world, for then they would have ceased 
to be such. The point in controversy is this: Was a certain miracle 
performed at a given time and place? . The testimony in favor of mira- 
cles, when clear, explicit, ample, and conclusive, cannot be set aside by 
mere negative proof, whatever may be its amount or character. To 
proceed upon that principle, would be to ignore, on religious questions, 
all the principles of evidence and the rules of reasoning on all other 
subjects. 

We now call attention to the last point proposed—the manner in 
which Mr, Hume’s argument blends together testimony of all sorts, 
placing good and bad in the same category. Here, we think, is to be 
found the greatest defect in this noted argument. As a miracle implies, 
according to the argument, that either the laws of nature have been 
violated, or human testimony has proved false, Mr. Hume proves, by 
the testimony of experience, that no miracle has been wrought. Now, he 
argues that our experience in the truth of testimony is not so uniform as 
our experience in the constancy of nature. Here he contemplates all 
kinds of testimony in the gross; and finding that testimony has often 
reen deceptive, he infers that the testimony deposing to the miracle in 


Ch. x.] MIRACLES—HUME’S ARGUMENT. 617 


question is not to be relied on, because we have often experienced the 
falsehood of testimony, but have never experienced a violation of the 
laws of nature. Hence, as he argues, a miracle never can be estab- 
lished by human testimony. Now, we ask, is not this making all testi- 
mony, however good and reliable, responsible for the defects of all other 
testimony, however false or deceptive? The argument is substantially 
this: One kind of testimony has often proved false; therefore another 
kind of testimony, which has never proved false, is not to be relied oa 
—that is, a rogue has often deceived me; hence I ought not to trust an 
honest man, who has never deceived me. If two things are essentially 
different in their nature, to prove a defect in the one will not neces- 
sarily involve th other in the same defect ; but this is the character of 
the reasoning before us. 

The argument of Mr. Hume against the character of testimony, is 
precisely the same as if he had grouped all animals together, and con- 
demned and punished the innocent and harmless for the mischief’ per- 
petrated by the vicious and ferocious. For illustration: The wolf, the 
tiger, the panther, and the hawk, according to the general experi- 
ence of the world, have often been found injurious, ferocious, and 
destructive to the welfare, peace, and happiness of man; therefore the 
calf, the lamb, the domestic fowl, and the turtle-dove, must be con- 
demned and exterminated, notwithstanding their admitted proverbial 
mnocence and harmlessness, for the crimes of those ferocious and vicious 
animals in whose company they have been classed! You must never 
trust your child to play with the gentle lamb, to caress his beautiful 
bantam, or to place the innocent dove in his bosom, for the wolf, the 
tiger, the panther, and the hawk, have often been known to prey. upon 
innocent and unprotected children—to pick out their eyes, or to tear 
their tender flesh to pieces! It is true, the calf, the lamb, the chicken, 
and the dove, are essentially different in their nature from the wolf, the 
tiger, the panther, and the hawk; but what of that? They are all 
animals—they are all grouped together in the same category; and as 
we have often experienced that animals are vicious and ferocious, there- 
fore animals are not to be trusted. Because we have often experienced 
that a certain kind of animals has injured us, therefore we ought not to 
trust a certain other kind that was never known to do us harm! 

This is precisely the logic of Mr. Hume. We have changed the 
term testimony, and substituted for it the term animals, in order to exhibit 
more clearly the fallacy of the argument, but the logic is identical in 
both cases. Mr. Hume groups together good and bad testimoay—that 
kind which is honest, full, conclusive, and satisfactory, having every 


618 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Po ne Bes 


mark of truth, and which we have never experienced to be false, with 
that other kind which is deceptious, incomplete, indecisive, and unsatis- 
factory, having every characteristic of falsehood, and which we have 
never experienced to be true! Now, we undertake to affirm that the 
diversity in the characteristics of the different kinds of animals which 
we have classed together is no more essential and striking than that 
between the different kinds of testimony in the argument under review. 
Stripped of its sophistical garb, we here see the real fallacious character 
of that far-famed argument by which it was boasted that the world was 
to be redeemed from superstition, and men of sense taught to turn away 
from all proof.of miracles, “ without examination, as more properly a 
subject of derision than of argument.” 

Did Mr. Hume perceive this flaw in his argument, or did he not? 
[f he did not, it argues but little for his perspicacity; if he did, and 
designedly slurred it over, it argues more for the malignity of his heart 
than for the honesty of his purpose. We allow Mr. Hume to assert, as 
confidently as he pleases, that “we have never experienced a violation of 
the laws of nature;” but we affirm, with an equal degree of confidence, 
that we—yea, the world—have never experienced the falseness of that 
kind of testimony by which the miracles of Scripture have been proved; 
ner can we perceive it possible how such testimony could be false; but we 
can very readily perceive it possible, and even probable, that God, the 
wuthor of nature and of nature’s laws, should suspend or hold in check 
his own laws, by the intervention of a higher law, for the glorious pur- 
pose of attesting the revelation of his will to his dependent, accountable 
creatures. 

Having said what we deemed expedient in regard to Mr. Hume’s 
argument, considered in reference to its intrinsic merits, we close the 
subject by calling attention to his inconsistency. In a note appended 
to his Essay on Miracles, he has recorded the following words: 

“Suppose all authors in all languages agree, that from the first of 
January, 1600, there was a total darkness all over the earth for eight 
days—suppose that the tradition of this event is still strong and lively 
among the people—that all travelers bring us accounts of the same tra- 
dition, ete.—it is evident that our philosophers ought to receive it for cer- 
tain.” Now mark! these words are a part of the same Essay in which 
it is recorded: “A miracle, supported by any human testimony, is more 
properly a subject of derision than of argument.” “No kind of testi- 
mony, for any kind of miracle, can possibly amount to a probability. 
much less to a proof!” 

Here we have a clear and explicit condemnation of his own argument 


Ch. x. MIRACLES—HUME'S ARGUMENT. 619 


against miracles; but, stranger still, he immediately proceeds to con 
demn his own concession : 

“But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion, 
men in all ages have been so imposed upon by ridiculous stories of that 
kind, that this very circumstance would be full proof of a cheat, and 
sufficient with all men of sense, not only to make them reject the fact, 
but even reject it without farther examination.” 

It now appears that this celebrated essayist against the miracles of 
the Bible exhibits himself in several antagonistic attitudes. 

He first informs us that miracles cannot be proved by any kind of 
human testimony whatever. He next affirms that miracles can be 
proved; and he gives an instance.in which even philosophers would be 
bound to receive the proof as certain. He lastly asserts that this same 
testimony, by which a miracle is proved to be certain, in the judgment 
of philosophers, if applied to the subject of religion, should be “ rejected 
as a cheat by all men of sense, without examination.” That so acute 
and penetrating a metaphysician as Hume should so palpably contra- 
dict himself in so short a space, is really marvelous, and can only be 
accounted for by the admission of the fact, that his malignity against 
Christianity had supplanted his reason by prejudice. What but preju- 
dice could lead him to affirm that a fact, though proved by such testi- 
mony that even philosophers are obliged to admit its certainty, if applied 
to the support of religion, that moment ceases to be true, and should 
‘“be rejected as a cheat”? How can the use to which a fact is applied 
either change the character of the fact or of the testimony by which it 
has been established? For this tergiversation of Hume we can find 
no parallel, unless it be in that inconsistency of the Jesuits, by which they 
asserted that “what is true in philosophy may be false in theology.” 
But what plea does Mr. Hume set up as an apology for such contra 
diction and absurdity? Simply this: that “men in all ages have been 
so imposed upon by ridiculous stories of that kind, that this very cireum 
stance would be full proof of a cheat.” Wonderful logic! The world 
has long been imposed upon by falsehoods; therefore nothing should be 
received as true, however it may be demonstrated! The community 
has long been humbugged by empiricism and quackery in medicine , 
therefore every principle of the science should be rejected, without 
examination! The country has been long flooded with counterfeit cur- 
rency; therefore no coin should be received as genuine, however indu- 
bitable the evidence! The world has long been “imposed upon by 
ridiculous stories” of false miracles, destitute of real proof; therefore 
men of sense should “reject, without examination,” all accounts of 


62u ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii, B. 2 


genuine miracles, however well authenticated by the most indubitable 
evidence! Had Newton or Locke, Bacon or Boyle, Samuel Clarke or 
Richard Watson, or any of the renowned defenders of Christianity, 
perpetrated so glaring an outrage upon sound reasoning as this, they 
never could have gained the reputation they have secured as sound 
philosophers and able logicians; but this champion of infidelity may 
blunder on with a volume of sophistry, and coolly enunciate the most 
palpable absurdities and contradictions, yet, since he has boasted that 
he has set forth an argument that “will be useful to overthrow miracles 
as long as the world endures,” his modern satellites unblushingly laud 
him to the skies as a paragon of perfection, both as to the acuteness of 
his perception, and the soundness of his logic! 

Have these wiseacres of the present day—who flaunt themselves as 
disciples of Hume—discernment to appreciate the logic and consistency 
of their renowned master? If they have, they will blush with shame 
and abandon the cause of infidelity, or seek some other leader; if they 
have not, they should be left to “ glory in their shame”! To combine 
so much sophistry in so brief an argument as that of Hume against 
miracles, required an ingenuity for which it is difficult to find a paral- 
lel, except in the degree of assurance with which the renowned sophism 
has been paraded. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER X. 


Question 1. What is the substance of] 8. In what sense are miracles contrary 


Hume's argument against miracles? to the laws of nature? 

2. What is the first-named objection to| 9. What is the verdict of common sense 
his argument ? as to the character of the evidence 

3. Does his argument bear equally of iniracles? 
against miracles, whether witnessed | 10. What are the two capital flaws in 
by our own senses, or confirmed by Hume’s argument? 
testimony ? 11. How may it be shown that his argu- 

4. What is the next objection to his ment balances experience against 
argument? inexperience ? 

5. How may it be shown that his argu- | 12. How is it shown that Mr. Hume 
men* would disprove every thing absurdly blends together good and 
new and marvelous? bad testimony ? 

6 Wherein consists the ambiguity of | 13. If Mr. Hume perceived this flaw in 
the term ezperience, as used by his argument, what must we infer? 
Hume? What, if he did not? 


7. How are the laws of nature properly | 14. Wherein was Hume glaringly incom 
defined? sistent with himself? 


oh. xiv MIKACLES-—THEIR TESTIMONY. 62) 


CHAPTER XI. 


MIRACLES 


THE CHARACTER OF THEIR TESTIMONY. 


In the preceding chapter we so far advanced in the discussion of the 
subject of miracles as to show that they are susceptible of proof from 
human testimony, whether that testimony be derived through the 
medium of our own senses or the affirmations of others who profess to 
have witnessed them. We now proceed to examine the connection 
between the truth of a real miracle and the truth of that system or doc- 
trine in whose support it has been performed. 

In reference to the question now proposed, there are three distinct 
theories which have each been advocated by some of our ablest theo- 
logians. 

The first is: That real miracles, when certainly performed, are an 
absolute and indubitable evidence of the truth of the doctrines and 
testimony of those who perform them, without taking into consideration 
the nature of the doctrine or of the testimony to be confirmed. 

The second theory is: That miracles are only conclusive evidence 
when the doctrines of whose truth they are given as tests do not incul- 
cate as virtues, cruelty, deceit, or licentiousness, or what we know to be 
wrong; or proclaim as truths that which we certainly know to be his- 
torical or mathematical falsehoods; but, on the other hand, are char- 
acterized throughout by a pure and unchanging morality and a sacred 
regard for truth. 

A third theory, claiming Dr. Chalmers as its patron, occupies a mid 
dle ground between the two already. stated. It takes the position, tha 
a miracle is not in all cases the seal of an attestation from God, but i+ 
only so when the doctrines it is used to confirm are free from all im- 
morality and falsehood. This view differs from the second theory given 
only by requiring in the doctrines to be confirmed no affirmative moral 
characteristics whatever in order to give validity to their proof by 
miracles. The second theory not only requires the doctrines in ques- 
tion to be freed from immorality and falsehood, but also to present an 
affirmative exhibition of pure morality. 


622 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii 3.2 


Dr. Chalmers has been the principal defender of the third scheme. 
He contends that all that is indispensable is, that the positive defects 
of immorality and falsehood be removed, and then, but not till then, 
miracles are a valid proof of the truth of the doctrines. His own 
words are: “We cannot, on the one hand, defer to the claims of a pro- 
fessed revelation, even though offered on the sanction of miracles, to 
have God for its author, if malignity and falsehood be graven upon its 
pages; aud why? Because all our preconceptions of the Deity are on 
the side of his benignity and his faithfulness. We, on the other hand, 
could most readily surrender to it our faith and our obedience, if after 
having witnessed or been convinced of its miracles, we saw that through 
all its passages it was instinct with «he purest morality; and why? 
Because if the discordancy between its characteristics and our previous 
notions of the character of Gov led us to reject the first, even in spite of 
the miracles that accompanied it, so the accordancy between its charac- 
teristics and tkese previous notions of the divine character lifts, as it 
were, the burden of this deduction off from the miracles, and leaves to 
them all that force and authority which properly belong to them. A 
revelation might be imagined which offered to our notice no moral 
characteristics whatever—which touched not at all on an ethical subject 
or principle of any kind—which confined itself to the bare announce- 
tnent, we shall suppose, of facts relative to the existence of things that 
lay without the sphere of our own previous observation or knowledge, 
but withal having miracles to which it could appeal as the vouchers for 
its authenticity. Would miracles alone, it might be asked, having nei- 
ther an evil morality in their message to overcast their authority nor 
a yood morality to confirm it—would these alone substantiate the claims 
wf a professed revelation? We hold that they would.” Again he 
udlds: “We would reject a professed revelation charged either with 
obvious immorality or falsehood, even though in the face of undoubted 
miracles. Let the doctrine have immorality or obvious falsehood at- 
tached to it, and then it is insusceptible of being proved by miraculous 
evidence to have come from God. We require the immorality and 
falsehood to be removed from the doctrine—not to prove it, but to give 
it the susceptibility of being proved.” 

The only part of this view of Dr. Chalmers from which we are com- 
pelled to dissent is this, that we should reject the testimony of miracles 
unless we first satisfy ourselves that the doctrines it is used to confirm 
do not embody immorality or falsehood. In the brief extracts we 
have made from his writings, this idea, with slight change of phrase 
vlogy, is several times expressed. We can see very little difference 


Uh. xi.] MIRACLES—THEIR TESTIMONY. 624 


between the theory of Dr. Chalmers and the second one, as given just 
previously. They both require an investigation of the doctrines which 
miracles are to test before we can determine whether they are suscepti- 
ble of proof by miracles or not. It is true that the examination 
required by the position of Dr. Chalmers seems not so extended as that 
demanded by the second theory. The doctrines, according to Dr. 
Chalmers, are only to be examined negatively to see that they teach no 
immorality or falsehoods. According to the other theory, they must 
be scrutinized both negatively and affirmatively to see that they are not 
only free from the defects specified but that they are characterized b- 
positive excellences worthy of the perfections of God. 

Now, it seems to us that the same investigation which would enable 
us to find out whether or not the revelation were encumbered by the 
“disturbing force” of the defects would also evince whether or not. it 
contained the requisite excellences. If the one scheme proves the 
miracles by the doctrines and the doctrines by the miracles, so loes the 
other. In each case the argument runs in the same “ circle,” and this 
objection to it cannot be evaded, ‘The objections to both these theories 
are substantially the same. In order to render miracles a proof of 
revelation, they require man to possess more exalted powers than be. 
long to his nature. He must know, according to these theories, what 
a divine revelation ought to be before he can decide from any evidence 
of miracles that it has been given. He must first examine it, not in 
part only, or in gross, but in whole and in minutia; for if it contains 
“immorality or falsehood,” it is “not susceptible of proof from mira- 
cles.” Should this revelation contain ten thousand chapters, and we 
carefully examine ninety-nine hundred and ninety-nine, and leave but 
one chapter unexamined, we cannot admit the proof of miracles; fot 
though in our whole examination we may not have been able to detect 
a single “immorality or falsehood,” yet how can we know what may 
be in that single chapter which we have not examined? A single de- 
fect may lurk therein which, when once discovered, will completely 
nullify all that miraculous testimony on which we had confidently 
relied. And farther yet, though we had examined every chapter of the 
revelation, finding none of the specified defects, still we could not be 
sure that we ought to admit the proof of miracles; for in a second 
examination we might discover what would then strike us as very ob- 
vious defects, such as it is urged would be “ barriers” to the testimony 
of miracles, but which, in the first examination, had escaped our notice. 
And farther still, if these theories be true, after we have gone through 
several examinations with 91r utmost care, detecting no “immorality 


524 -ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


or falsehood,” we must still be left in doubt—for we are not infallible, 
we are weak and ignorant, poorly capable, independent of revelation, 
of deciding what morality or truth is. What will appear to one man 
as all right and true, often appears to another to bear the marks of 
“obvious immorality or falsehood.” 

Apply this principle of testing the force of miraculous testimony by 
the character of the doctrines it is intended to confirm to some of the 
Scripture miracles, and it may easily be seen how it divests all those 
“mighty works” of Christ and his apostles, and of those “holy men 
of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” of all 
their native dignity and power. The sea is divided by the stretching 
forth of a rod; the flinty rock is smitten in the parched desert, and 
the waters gushed forth; Elijah prays, and fire from heaven falls upon 
his sacrifice; Daniel bows in supplication to God, and the lions’ 
mouths are stopped; the Saviour speaks the word, and a dead Lazarus 
comes forth from the tomb; the apostles pray at Pentecost, and the 
Holy Ghost descends in his miraculous gifts. Now all these obvious 
miracles were calculated to arrest the attention and to strike instant 
conviction to the minds of all who witnessed them that they were 
wrought by the “finger of God.” But, according to Dr. Chalmers, 
these miracles are no proofs of the manifestation of the divine power, 
unless the doctrines taught by those who perform them are free from 
“the disturbing force of obvious immorality and falsehood.” Then, after 
having witnessed the wonderful miracles of Moses with our own eyes, we 
must suspend our faith till we examine his doctrines, in all their minute 
details, before we can accredit his miraculous doings as tests of his 
divine commission ; we must attend carefully to the matter of Elijah’s 
bold reproofs and startling appeals before we can distinguish the works 
of “Elijah’s God” from those of an evil spirit; we must study and 
learn the character of Daniel’s predictions ere we can tell whether he 
was delivered from the lions by an evii spirit or by the interposition 
of the “ Lord God whom he served ;” we must first sit in judgment on 
the Saviour’s teachings, from first to last, before we can know whether 
it was through the “ Father who sent him” or through Beelzebub that 
he controlled the powers of nature; and we must acquaint ourselves 
with all the apostles’ doctrine before we can know whether their com- 
mission was from above or from beneath. 

It need not be argued that these revolting consequences do not follow 
from the theories we are here opposing. We know they did not in tha 
minds of the advocates of these schemes, and would not be admitted 
by them as legitimate consequences ; yet we contend that their position 


uh x1] MIRACLES—THEIR TESTIMONY. 625 


necessarily involves them. Miracles are either direct, immediate, and 
infallible proofs of the divine interposition, or they are not. If they 
are, then, so soon as we are certainly assured of their reality, their testi- 
mony is complete, and we are bound to receive as divine revelation all 
those things in confirmation of which they were performed; but if 
they are not, then the validity of miracles as a proof is suspended in 
doubt until the doctrines which they were given to confirm are under- 
stood. Unless these doctrines are understood, how can it be known 
whether the testimony of miracles is neutralized by the “ disturbing 
force” of “obvious immorality or falsehood,” or canonized by the ab- 
sence of any such “barriers”? The system of Dr. Chalmers, as 
expressed in his own words, “instead of holding all religion as sus- 
pended on the miraculous evidence,” represents ‘‘ this evidence itself 
standing at the bar of an anterior principle, and there waiting for its 
authentication.” 

We are convinced of the truth of the position given in the first the- 
ory cited, “That real miracles, when certainly performed, are an abso- 
lute and indubitable evidence of the truth of the doctrines and testi- 
mony of those who perform them, without taking into consideration the 
nature of the doctrine or the testimony to be confirmed.” If we be 
asked, But what if those doctrines teach palpable immoralities or false- 
hood? We reply, That is utterly impossible! In Dr. Chalmers’s own 
words: “It is enough to cut short this perplexity, that God cannot lie, 
and that we should not waste our intellects on the impossibilities of an 
airy and hypothetical region.” Let real miracles, in all cases, when 
once we are satisfied that they have actually been performed, be re- 
garded as the distinct utterances of God exhibited in the omnipotent 
doings of his manifested hand, and we will fully accredit their testi- 
mony at once, having no more apprehension that they may be used in 
testimony of “immorality or falsehood” than that the voice of God 
himself, addressing us from out a burning bush, or direct from the 
opening heavens, should assert what is false, or command what is 
wrong. 

It yet remains to bring the question we have been here discussing t 
the test of the Scriptures. Those who depreciate the testimony of mira- 
cles, considering it in the abstract, not absolute and unequivocal, gen- 
erally endeavor to strengthen their position by appealing to the Bible 
record concerning the Egyptian magicians in the days of Moses, the. 
demoniacal possessions of the New Testament, the raising of Samuel by 
the Witch of Endor, and one or two other texts from which it is inferred 
that other agencies beside that of God may sometimes perform miracles 


40 


626 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Po nornas 


As to the Eg -ptian magicians who attempted to imitate the miracles 
of Moses, it is sufficiently clear that they wrought no read miracles. 
Whether their feats were performed by mere sleight of hand, accom- 
panied by magical incantation, or by satanic agency, or by a combina- 
tion of both, is not important for us to determine. The terms used in 
describing their efforts do not imply, as some suppose they do, that the 
magicians did the thing which Moses did, but merely that they did 30; 
that is, something of like sort, or resembling what Moses had done. 
This will be more evident when we remember that the same expression 
is used when the failure of their attempted imitation is described: 
“They did so to bring forth lice, but they could not.” That all the per- 
formances of the magicians were but deceptive imitations, is farther evi- 
dent from the fact that they were so soon hafHled in their attempts, and 
constrained to confess “the finger of God.” If they could perform one 
miracle, why not another? or why desist their effort so suddenly, and 
confess their defeat? The solution is, that Moses had performed a 
miracle which their arts of deception were unable to conterfeit. Had 
they been real miracle-workers, surely it was no greater miracle to pro- 
duce the ice than to produce the frogs or the blood, but their deceptive 
arts could not so well practice with the one as with the other. 

As to the raising of the spirit of Samuel by the Witch of Endor, 
we must admit that a notable miracle was here performed. But by 
whom? Not by the Witch of Endor, but by the Lord Jehovah. The 
witch was alarmed when Samuel appeared. God saw proper just at 
that juncture to perform a miracle to the overwhelming of the en- 
ehantress with confusion, and for the purpose of reproving the wicked- 
ness of King Saul. 

In the case of Job, and of the demoniacal possessions of the New 
Testament, we see no evidence whatever that miracles were performed, 
or even attempted, by any of these evil spirits. Satan was allowed, it 
is true, grievously to afflict Job, but it was by special permit from 
Heaven. He possessed not even that power of himself He could only 
go the length of his chain. 

The evil spirits spoken of in the New Testament, of whom numbers 
in that day were said to be possessed, like Satan in the case of Job, 
were allowed greatly to torment the bodies of their unhappy victims. 
They could cause them to foam at the mouth, and tear their clothes 
and their flesh through madness. But there is nothing miraculous in 
such things as these. They perform no startling wonders. They never 
healed the sick or raised the dead. Indeed, they had no power to 
enter a human body except as given them by the Almighty, nor could 


Ch. xi.| MIRACLES—THEIR TESTIMONY. 627 


they so much as enter the Gadarene swine without express and formal] 
permission. 

Again, some have thought that from the prediction of our Saviour 
in reference to the coming of “ false Christs and false prophets,” they 
may legitimately infer that these wicked impostors would wield miracle- 
working power; but this is a most unwarrantable inference. The lan- 
guage of the Saviour is: “ For there shall arise false Christs and false 
prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that if it 
were possible thev shall deceive the very elect.” Now, we venture to 
affirm that the only miracle that can be established on this subject is 
that performed by the Saviour in uttering the prediction. What are 
these “signs and wonders” which “false Christs and false prophets” 
are to exhibit? Are they real miracles? If so, what were they? where 
and when were they performed? and show us the evidences of their 
authentication. One of them promised to divide the Jordan, but was 
slain by the Roman soldiers ere he had performed the task. Another 
promised that the walls of Jerusalem should fall down, but his fol- 
lowers were soon put to the sword by the Roman Governor. Another 
promised to divide the sea, and, having led many of his deluded fol- 
lowers to death, hid himself through shame and fear. And these are 
the “ wonders” quoted to prove that miracles are not absolute tests of 
the divine power. Their “signs and wonders” were not miracles, but, 
as described by St. Paul, “they were after the working of Satan with 
all power, and signs, and lying wonders.” 

Finally, that miracles are a direct and absolute proof of the doc- 
trines and testimony in behalf of which they are performed, we will 
now show from the Scriptures themselves. It may readily be seen, from 
both the Old and New Testaments, that the inspired writers, so far from 
considering miraculous evidence a secondary and dependent kind of 
testimony, “standing at the bar of an anterior principle, and there 
waiting for its authentication,” ever appealed to miracles as the most 
direct and indubitable proof of the truth of any doctrine, or of the 
divine mission of any person in whose behalf they have been per- 
formed. . 

To give but one example from the Old Testament, look at the con- 
test of Elijah with the false prophets of Baal, an account of which 
is recorded in the eighteenth chapter of the first book of Kings. In 
the days of Ahab—that wicked king of Israel who, with a profanity 
hitherto unparalleled in the history of Israel, had “digged down the 
altars of the true God” and set up the idolatrous worship of Baal— 
Elijah the Tishbite was divinely commissioned to stem the prevailing 


623 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. in. B. 2 


tide vf corruption. In answer to his prayer, the heavens became as 
brass, and for more than three years a withering drought prevailed. 
Ahab and the priests of Baal charged upon Elijah and Elijah’s God 
the dreadful calamities of the times. Elijah challenged them to a fair 
contest upon the question. The plan was agreed upon. The multi- 
tudes of Israel were summoned to the Mount of Carmel to witness the 
decisive conflict between truth and idolatry. There sat the royal mon- 
arch in his robes of state. Around were gathered the eight hundred 
and fifty prophets of Baal and of the groves. And there, in his rough 
mountain garg, the commissioned prophet of the Lord, standing up as 
the fearless advocate of the true religion, proclaimed t+ the multitudes: 
“How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow 
him; but if Baal, then follow him... . I, even I only, remain a 
prophet of the Lord; but Baal’s prophets are four hundred and fifty 
men, Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose 
one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, 
and put no fire under; and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it 
on wood, and put no fire under. And call ye on the name of your 
gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord; and the God that 
answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and 
said, It is well spoken.” Here the issue was a plain one. It was 
the authentication of Baal and his prophets on the one hand, or of 
Jehovah and his Prophet Elijah on the other hand; but how was it 
mutually agreed that the matter should be decided? It was by the 
direct and simple testimony of a miracle: “The God that answereth 
by fire, let him be God.” The prophets of Baal proceeded with their 
offering first. “But there was no voice nor any that answered.” No 
miracle testified in their favor. After every precaution had been taken 
by Elijah to furnish indubitable proof of a real miracle, he proceeded 
with his offering. He called upon his God, saying, “Lord God of 
Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art 
God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all 
these things at thy word. Hear me, O Lord, hear me, that this people 
may know that thou art the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their 
heart back again. Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the 
burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked 
up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw it, 
they fell on their faces; and they said, The Lord, he is the God! 
The Lord, he is the God!” 

Now, we ask, can any thing be more pointed than the truth here 
vet forth, that miracle, and miracle alone, was recognized as the direct 


Ch. xi.) MIRACLES—THEIh TESTIMON™. 629 


and infallible authentication of the mission of him in whose behalf it 
was performed? In his prayer, Elijah asks God for the miracle as a 
divine attestation of the fact, both that Jehovah was “God in Israel,” 
and that the doings and teachings of his prophet were divinely sanc- 
tioned. And when the miracie appeared, there was immediate and 
unqualified acquiescence in its testimony as final and conclusive. There 
was no holding of it in abeyance till the character of the teachings of 
Jehovah by his accredited prophet could be scanned. It was enough 
that an unquestionable miracle had been witnessed. They had heard 
the divine utterance in that palpable form, and that was the finale on 
the question. 

But let us hear the claims which our Saviour founds upon the testi- 
mony of his miracles. His language is: “If I had not done among 
them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin; but 
now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.” “If I 
do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye 
believe not me, believe the works.” To this direct, miraculous testi- 
mony he constantly appeals. “The works which the Father hath given 
me to do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me.” What 
these works are, he informs us in the answer he sent to John by those 
disciples whom John had deputed to ask the Saviour, “Art thou he 
that should come?” “Go,” said Jesus, “and show John again those 
things which ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight, and 
the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are 
raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” 

Thus it appears that our Saviour placed the strongest possible reli- 
ance upon the simple, abstract testimony of miracles. Did he wish to 
impress the people with the divinity of his claims as a Teacher sent 
from heaven, or to show them their own responsibility for neglecting 
his precepts, he never paused to argue out the consistency of his doc- 
trines with the principles of natural religion, or with the “supremacy 
of conscience within them.” However weighty corroborative evidence 
of this kind may be justly estimated, he never deemed it an essential 
prerequisite to the testimony of miracles; but ever “taught as one 
having authority,” founding his claims to that authority on the witness 
of his miracles alone. Had it been otherwise—had it been necessary 
for the people first to examine all his teachings to see if they embodied 
any thing whatever “ obviously inconsistent with morality, or with his: 
torical or mathematical truth”—what would have been the condition of 
the illiterate masses? How poorly qualified were they for such an iu 
vestigation, and how little inclined to such an exercise! 


630 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pn Be 


But relying, as he did, solely upon his miracles, he could point the 
blind beggar, the unlettered cottager, the vine-dresser, the shepherd, 
the publican, the fisherman, the poor, the maimed, the halt, and all the 
multitudes of common people, to the wonders he performed—to the 
water blushing to wine, to the man born blind seeing plainly, to the 
lame man throwing aside his crutches and leaping as the hart, to the 
howling tempest hushed to silence, and to the dead coming to life at 
his bidding—and say to all, “ Believe me for the very works’ sake.” 

Let the proud and insolent cohorts of infidelity come on in bold 
array, and hurl against God’s holy Son their poisoned shafts of deadly 
hate; let Jew and pagan both unite to snatch from off the head of 
Zion’s King the crown imperial he so justly claimed; let them demand 
of him where his credentials are, by which to prove his mission is from 
heaven. He stands erect in presence of opposing foes, and bids the 
wheels of nature pause; he speaks the word, and all the universe stands 
ready to attest the claims of his Messiahship. Does infidelity demand 
his credentials, he brings not his demonstrations nor his logic from the 
Academy, the Lyceum, or the Portico, but all the hidden forces of 
omnipotence that slumber concealed in the deep recesses of the mate- 
rial universe instantly become vocal in attestation of his divinity. At 
his bidding, the liquid element becomes a pavement of adamant be- 
neath his tread, and the finny tenant of the deep becomes his tax-payer. 
With the same power that once said, “Let there be light,” he speaks 
the word, and visual luster flashes from the sightless ball. The signa- 
ture of his mission is engraven, not with pen upon parchment, nor with 
chisel upon marble, but with the finger of Omnipotence upon the 
dome of nature. He whose behest all natures and all beings obeyed, 
fixed upon the throne of his own unoriginated divinity, could exclaim 
in majestic triumph: “The works that I do, they bear witness of me.” 


Ch. xi.) MIRACLES—THELK TESTIMONY, 631 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XI. 


Question 1. In reference to the connec- 
tion between the truth of a miracle 
and the truth of the system in be- 
half of which it has been performed, 
what three distinct theories have 
been advocated ? 

2. Who was a prominent patron of the 
third theory? 

8. What is the objectionable part of his 
statement? 

4 Wherein does his view differ from the 
aeennd theory? 


5. 
6. 


How may its absurdity be shown? 
How may its inconsistency with 
Scripture be shown? 


. Explain the first or true theory. 
. What Scripture testimony has been 


appealed to by those whc depreci- 
ate the evidence of miracles? 


. How may those objections be set 


aside? 

How may it be shown that the first 
theory is confirmed by the general 
testimony of the Bible? 


532 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, (Pi B32 


CHAPTER XII. 


MIRACLES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


Having proved, in our preceding chapters, the genuineness and 
autheniicity of the Scriptures, it necessarily follows that the accounts 
of the miracles therein recorded must be received as a faithful history 
of facts as they transpired; and having farther shown that miracles are 
susceptible of satisfactory proof from human testimony, and that, when 
thus proved, they are direct and conclusive evidence of the divine mis: 
sion of him who performs them, and of the truth of the doctrmes for 
the confirmation of which they are wrought, it yet remains (to render 
the argument from this source complete) that we examine the miracles 
of Scripture to see if they sustain the character of rea, unquestionable 
miracles, and if the testimony by which the actual performance of them 
is proved is satisfactory and conclusive. 

The two points, then, to be specially noted, in regard to what we deem 
miraculous in Scripture, are, the character of the works themselves, and 
the evidence by which their actual occurrence is established. If it 
appear that those things in Scripture termed miraculous are not real 
and genuine miracles, but merely extraordinary and marvelous events 
which might have been produced by mere natural causes, without any 
immediate divine interposition, or that there is a radical defect in the 
evidence sustaining the facts themselves, in either case the Christian 
argument founded on miracles cannot be reliable and satisfactory; but, 
on the other hand, should it be manifest that the events in question are 
real and indisputable miracles, and that the evidence confirming them 
is clear, ample, and conclusive, then it follows that our argument from 
miracles rests on a firm and sure basis. 

We call attention, first, to the miracles of the Old Testament. It 
is only important that we advert to some of the more conspicuous of 
these, nor will it be requisite to go into any minute investigation of 
them. We think that the real miraculous character of these events, 
and the fullness and irresistibility of the testimony in favor of their 
truth, stand forth so palpably upon the face of the record, that it is 


Ch. xii.) MIRACLES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 633 


scarcely possible for an unprejudiced mind to admit she history and 
dispute the miracle. 

Let us glance, then, in the first place, at the “ten plagues” brought 
upon Egypt by the hand of Moses. At the bidding of Jehovah, Aaron, 
under the direction of Moses, stretched forth the consecrated rod upon the 
waters of Egypt—upon the streams, the rivers, the ponds, and pools of 
water, throughout all the land—and instantly they crimsoned into blood. 
Again the rod was stretched forth, and the whole land was covered with 
frogs—they teemed in the rivers, crowded into the houses, clambered 
upon the beds, and even the kneading-troughs and ovens were polluted 
by their presence. Again the rod was stretched out, and the very dust 
of the earth was transformed into “lice,” and both man and _ beast 
throughout all the land were tormented with this hateful vermin. Again, 
the land was cursed with the swarms of flies or hornets—they crowded 
upon Pharaoh, and upon his servants, and upon all the Egyptians, filling 
their houses, and covering the very earth. Again, the murrain is sent 
upon the cattle, upon the oxen, upon the horses, upon the asses, and 
upon the sheep of the Egyptians, smiting them with death, on a specific 
day and hour. Again, at the sprinkling of the ashes of the furnace 
toward heaven by the hand of Moses, in the sight of Pharaoh, they 
became small dust, settling everywhere upon man and beast among the 
Egyptians, and breaking forth into boils and blains. Again Moses, at 
the command of God, stretched forth the rod, and a storm of miugled 
hail and fire ran along the ground, rending the trees, smiting the herbs, 
and spreading destruction to both man and beast that were found in the 
field among the Egyptians. And next came the plague of locusts, 
darkening the land, destroying the fruit, and every herb and green 
thing left by the hail; then the three days of “darkness that might be 
felt;” and last of all came the destruction of the first-born of man 
and beast among the Egyptians, by the destroying angel. 

Now, we ask, can there be a doubt that a real miracle was manifest 
in each of these plagues? They came by previous announcement—no 
visible natural cause, except the stretching forth of the rod, was present 
in connection with them—they appeared instantly, and at a predn- 
nounced time—they fell upon all the Egyptians, while every Israelite 
with all that he possessed was preserved and escaped. These wonders 
were so palpable, that they could not have escaped the notice of any, 
or been misunderstood in their character. They were witnessed by the 
whole nation of Egypt, and by all the people of Israel. The Passover 
was instituted at the time, to commemorate the deliverance of the 
Israelites; and it is as clear as any thing can be, that had the Mosaie 


634 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2. 


account of these things not been true, the Israelites never could have 
been induced to accredit the Mosaic record as a revelation from Heaven. 
Two nations—the Egyptians and the Israelites—were witnesses of all 
these mighty wonders. Had the record of facts, as given by Moses, not 
been true, these whole nations of Egyptians and Israelites must have 
known that the account given by Moses was a cheat, and their testimony 
would have been recorded against it; but the books of Moses were 
received from the very first as a revelation from God, by that very 
people who must have known whether these things which they recorded 
were true or false. Hence we conclude that the Mosaic miracles were 
real; and they fully establish the divine legation of Moses, and the truth 
of his writings. 

Again, look at the dividing of the Red Sea at the stretching forth 
of the rod of Moses, and the water standing like walls on each side 
while the Israelites passed over, and again flowing together just in time 
to overwhelm with death the pursuing hosts of Pharaoh! See the 
wonderful interpositions of God in behalf of his people in the wilder- 
ness—the miraculous supply of manna, falling in sufficient quantity 
for use on each day of the week, except the Sabbath, and a double por- 
tion on Friday for the supply of that day and the Sabbath also, and 
then the ceasing of the manna the day when it was no longer needed, 
and the fact that it was never known before or since! Look at the 
flinty rock smitten by the rod of Moses, sending forth an abundant 
étream of water in the face of all Israel! See the brazen-serpent: ele- 
vated upon the pole, in view of all the tents of the multitude, and each 
one that had been bitten by the fiery-flying serpent, upon looking upon 
the serpent of brass, instantly healed of the poison! See the dividing 
of the waters of the Jordan, and all the people passing over on dry 
ground! Look at all these things, and say, Were they not real mira- 
cles? They occurred in the face of the whole nation—they were events 
that admitted of no deception with those who witnessed them, nor could 
the lapse of a few years render the remembrance of them indistinct. 
Now, we ask, could the Jewish people have been made to believe these 
things, either in that or any succeeding age, had they not been true? 
and, not believing them, could they have been induced to receive, as a 
revelation from Heaven, the books containing what they knew to be a 
tissue of palpable falsehoods? The events to which we have referred 
were evidently real miracles. No power but that which can control all 
nature, and suspend or supersede its laws at pleasure, can cover a 
whole country for three days together with the thickest darkness, and, 
at the same time, favor all of a specified class in the same region with 


Ch. xii.] MIRACLES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 635 


“light in their dwellings.” Nor could a whole people who had wit 
nessed such an event be misled as to the facts. Equally impossible it 
would be to persuade them that they had witnessed them when they 
had not, or that they had not witnessed them when they had. These 
miracles are all palpable and unmistakable in their character: they 
clearly and satisfactorily prove the truth of that which they were per 
formed to establish ; and such is the character of the testimony by which 
they have been confirmed, that we can only reject it by surrendering 
ourselves to the reign of almost universal skepticism. If we reject the 
accounts of the Mosaic miracles, we must, to be consistent with our: 
selves, reject all authentic history. 

As to the grand design or object of these miracles in Egypt, it seems to 
have been threefold : first, to condemn the idolatrous worship of Egypt; 
secondly, to impart to the Egyptians a knowledge of the true God; 
thirdly, to show that Moses was acting under a divine commission. 

How, then, do we find these plagues to pour contempt upon the prin- 
cipal objects of Egyptian adoration! The Nile was the most popular 
divinity of the Egyptians, and, as if to present a striking contrast 
between its imbecility and the mighty power of Jehovah, the first judg- 
ment is poured upon its sacred waters. The frog was one of their sacred 
animals, and it too, under the divine edict, was turned against them, 
and made an instrument of their punishment. In the plague of “flies” 
we see another manifestation of the contempt here poured upon the sys- 
tem of Egyptian idolatry. This insect was also an object of Egyptian 
idolatrous worship, and the popular idol, Baal-zebub, was styled “ lord 
of the gad-fly.” The murrain upon the cattle was also well calculated 
to teach them how insignificant was their god Apis (the ox) in the 
hands of Jehovah. In the terrible plague of “hail and fire,” the prin- 
cipal divinities of the Egyptians—water, air, and fire—in the hand of 
Jehovah, are made to combine their influence to terrify and punish those 
who so stupidly worshiped and trusted in them for protection. In the 
plague of “darkness,” the Egyptians were taught that another of their 
chief divinities—the sun—could render them no assistance or comfort 
when Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, saw proper to shroud his 
beams in a mantle of darkness. These miracles were all performed 
through the instrumentality of Moses, but by the avowed authority of 
Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews. Hence we may see how admirably 
they were adapted to their intended purpose—to consign to contempt 
the Egyptian idolatry, to promote the knowledge of the true God, and 
to furnish the divine credentials of Moses. 


636 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XII. 


Question 1. What are the two points to| 4. What two facts are thereby estab- 

be specially noted in regard to the lished? 

miracles of Scripture? 5. What was the grand design of the 
2. What miracles of the Old Testament Egyptian miracles? 

are first noticed ? 6. In what way was this design accom 
3 How does it appear that these plagues plished ? 

were real miracles? 


Qa 


Ch. xili.: MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 637 


CHAPTER XIII. 
MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


WE now proceed to notice the miracles of the New Testament. It 
has already been stated, in another connection, that our Saviour ever 
appealed with the utmost confidence to the works he performed as 
bearing witness to the divinity of his mission. At present we propose 
only a brief reference to a few of the most remarkable of those works, 
to show that they were truly miraculous in their character, and were 
sufficiently attested by satisfactory evidence. 

We consider it unnecessary either to cite a great number of our 
Saviour’s miracles, or to be very minute in their examination. What, 
we inquire, are some of the principal of his marvelous works? He 
changed the water to wine—he healed a man sick of the palsy by 
simply uttering the words, “Thy sins be forgiven thee”—he opened the 
eyes of a man “blind from his birth” by anointing them with clay, and 
directing him “to wash in the pool of Siloam”—he calmed the raging 
of the tempest by saying, “ Peace, be still!”—twice he fed thousands 
with a few loaves and fishes, and in three several instances he raised 
the dead to life. When called on by Jairus, a Jewish ruler, in refer- 
ence to his danghter who was dead, he raised her to life by taking her 
by the hand end saying, “ Damsel, arise?” Passing—in company with 
his disciples and a multitude of people—into the city of Nain, he met 
a funeral-procession bearing a dead young man, the son of a widow, to 
his grave. “ He touched the bier, and they that bare him stood still; 
and he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise; and he that was 
dead sat up, and began to speak.” But the raising of Lazarus co ift 
again, is the most remarkable miracle of this kind performed by 3m 
Saviour. Here was a man who had been dead for four days: sur. 
rounded by multitudes of people who were present, Jesus— having 
ordered the stone to be rolled away from the door of the sepulcher— 
spoke the word, saying, “ Lazarus, come forth!” and the dead man 
instantly arose to life. 

Now, we think it cannot be disputed that these works are truly mirac 


638 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. LP. un. B. 2 


ulous. They involved, at a single word, the instantaneous change of 
ene material substance to another—the water to wine. They em- 
braced the healing of the most inveterate diseases, and even the cure of 
blindness from the birth, without the employment of any adequate 
natural agencies. Many of them were performed in the presence of 
great multitudes of persons: all classes, friends and foes, disciples and 
persecutors, witnessed them; and they were of the most obvious and 
palpable character. They were open to the inspection of the external 
senses of all; and such were their nature, and the circumstances attend- 
ing them, that imposition or collusion was impossible. The cures, 
though instantaneous in the production and with no adequate natural 
agency for their cause, were permanent in their duration, presenting 
favorable opportunity for numerous and deliberate inspections. Hence, 
if they had not been real miracles, there was every opportunity for the 
detection and exposure of the cheat; and, surrounded as the Saviour 
was by the wily Sadducees and Pharisees, and by the adroit scribes 
and doctors of the law, who were ever on the alert to entangle him in 
his words and to bring his doctrines into disrepute, we may be well 
assured that, had it been possible, he would have been convicted of 
deception. But the fact of his miracles—in the day and among the 
community in which they were performed—was never disputed. The 
fucts were admitted, but they were attributed to infernal agency. Hence 
we infer that the mighty works of the Saviour were real miracles, and 
that they indubitably attest the claims of his Messiahship, and the truth 
of his religion. 

In conclusion, on the subject of miracles, we call attention to the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the greatest of all the Serip- 
ture miracles. 

That there lived in the land of Judea, in the days of Augustus and 
Tiberius Cesar, a remarkable person called Jesus of Nazareth; that he 
taught a pure and sublime system of morality, and Jed an exemplary 
and self-denying life; that he was a devoted friend to the poor and the 
afflicted, and performed many astonishing miracles; that he was perse- 
cuted by the Jews, and accused of blasphemy and sedition; that he was 
condemned by the Roman governor, and crucified at Jerusalem ; that 
his body was taken down from the cross, interred in J oseph’s tomb, and 
a band of Roman soldiers set to guard it till the third day should be 
passed—these are facts which Christianity has always asserted, and 
which infidelity, neither in that age nor for centuries afterward, ever 
denied. Celsus, of the second century, Porphyry, of the third century 
and Hierocles and Julian the Apostate, of the fourth century, never 


Ch. sii.) MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 689 


dared to dispute them; but they attributed the miracles of Jesus either 
to magic or infernal agency. 

But did Jesus Christ rise again from the dead? or did he not? Here 
Christianity and infidelity join issue. Christianity affirms—infidelity 
denies. That the whole controversy turns upon this question cannot be 
denied. If Jesus Christ arose from the dead, then is he the Messiah—the 
Saviour of the world—and his religion is true; but if he did not arise 
from the dead, then he is an impostor, his gospel a delusion, and the hope 
of his followers a dream! Upon this point the inspired apostles rested 
their cause, when they first issued the proclamation of salvation in the 
name of Him who had been crucified. The resurrection of Jesus from the 
dead was a prominent point in that sermon of St. Peter at Pentecost, 
delivered in Jerusalem only a few weeks after his crucifixion, when three 
thousand were converted in a day. Indeed, the burden of apostolic 
preaching was “Jesus and the resurrection.” 

If, then, the great Christian controversy—whether with Jews, pagans, 
or whatever class of unbelievers—turns upon the question of fact as to 
the resurrection of Christ from the dead, how important that the evi- 
dences bearing upon that fact be carefully examined and correctly 
understood! Contemplating, then, the resurrection of Christ in the 
light of an historic fact, we propose to examine it by the same laws of 
evidence by which any other fact of history should be judged. If this 
fact can be sustained by such evidence as would be satisfactory and 
convincing to a rational mind in regard to any other fact of history, 
then must we either admit that this fact is true, and that Christianity 
also is true, or renounce our reason itself. On the other hand, if this 
fact cannot be thus sustained, then “is our preaching vain, and your 
faith is also vain.” Let us therefore look at the testimony. 

We must begin by assuming as true what is admitted on both sides— 
that is, the general facts above stated, concerning the life, crucifixion, 
and burial of Jesus. The only point in controversy is the simple ques- 
tion of fact: Did Jesus rise again from the dead? or did he not? If, as 
admitted on both sides, he was crucified, and his dead body buried and 
guarded as we have stated, then it is undeniable that, after the third 
day, his enemies, if he had not arisen from the dead, would have been 
able to produce that dead body, or to furnish some satisfactory account 
for their inability to produce it. Did they do either? For eighteen 
centuries infidelity has denied that Jesus arose from the dead, and 
yet infidels have never pretended to produce the dead body of him 
who was crucified between the two thieves! This fact alone stands 
forth as a presumptive argument, of almost irresistible power, in favor 


640 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 2 


of the resurrection of Jesus. Did not his enemies know that the whole 
controversy, as to his character and the truth of his religion, depended 
upon the fact of his rising or not rising again on the third day? Did 
they not know that he had foretold that he would thus rise? Was it 
not to prevent imposition on the part of his disciples in regard to this 
very thing that a guard of sixty armed soldiers was placed around his 
dead body? Were they not bound to produce his dead body after the 
third day, both to justify themselves in putting him to death and to 
save the world from the delusions of imposture! Would they not have 
produced that body, had it been in their power to do so? Can a rea- 
sonable mind doubt that, if it had been in their power, his enemies 
would have produced that dead body, after the third day, most promptly 
and triumphantly? Did they do it? Did they pretend or attempt to do 
it? And if they did nothing of the kind, what is the rational infer- 
ence but that they did not, because they could not? And if they could 
not, unless he has arisen from the dead, they can furnish—they are 
bound to furnish—a reasonable and satisfactory account for that ina- 
bility. Have they furnished this account? Can a reasonable mind 
doubt that they would have furnished the world with the most satis- 
factory account for their inability to produce the dead body of Jesus 
after the third day, had it been in their power? 

But let us look at the only apology an infidel world has ever pre- 
sented for this inability to produce the dead body of Jesus. Tt is this: 
“His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slent.” 
These are the words put into the mouth of the guard, and currently 
reported in that day among the Jews. Irrational and absurd as we 
may be led to consider this story, yet, as it is the only attempt the oppo- 
nents of Christianity have ever made to account for the absence of the 
dead body of Jesus, after the third day, it demands a serious consid- 
eration. We think it will appear that this story bears upon its face 
such an array of improbability, that no rational mind can believe it to 
be true. Allow us briefly to enumerate some of the most obvious of 
these improbabilities : 

1, Is it reasonable to believe that the disciples would have attempted 
such a theft under the circumstances? Twelve obscure peasants—with- 
out learning—without power, title, or influence—alarmed, discouraged, 
and scattered like sheep without a shepherd, when their Master was 
arrested—would they rally and risk their lives in so hopeless a task as 
to go, unarmed as they were, to wrest the dead body of Jesus from the 
custody of sixty armed soldiers ? 

2. But granting—what is exceedingly improbable—that they might 


Ch. xiii.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 641 


have made the attempt, is it probable they would have found the guard 
all asleep on their post at the same time? When it is known that it was 
death by the Roman law for a soldier to sleep at his post, would the 
whole band have fallen into profound sleep at the same time? Can a 
reasonable mind believe this to be possible? 

3. But, admitting that they had all fallen asleep at the same time, is 
it reasonable to suppose that they would have selected, as an appropri- 
ate time for slumber, the dawn of “the third day”?—the first hour of 
the very dayon which he had said he would rise! Would they have 
selected that time—when it was all-important for them to be vigilant— 
as the time for inattention and sleep? Who can believe it? ‘ 

4. But admit this to have been the case, improbable as it is, is it to 
be believed that the disciples could have entered by stealth within the 
inclosure of this armed guard, broken the seal from the sepulcher, 
rolled the great stone away from its door, and borne away the dead 
body to a place of concealment—and all this in so noiseless a manner 
as not to have awakened one of the guard? 

5. But admitting this improbability to have taken place also, is it to 
be presumed that these sixty armed soldiers, finding that their dead 
prisoner had been taken from them while they were asleep, would have 
fled immediately to the city and reported themselves guilty of a crime 
whose penalty was death, without making a single effort to save their 
own lives by searching for and endeavoring to recover the stolen body? 

6. But if the soldiers were all “asleep,” how could they know that the 
disciples stole the body? Some other persons may have done it, or he 
may have arisen from the dead, for aught they could know, if they were 
all “asleep”! 

7. But admitting, for the sake of argument, all these improbabilities 
to have occurred (which no sane person can believe), is it probable that 
a Roman guard, commissioned with so important a trust, would have 
been permitted all to sleep at their post, and thus allow their dead 
charge to escape from their custody, and no arrest or trial of these sol- 
diers be attempted, or the least inquiry made concerning so gross a 
neglect of so important a duty? 

8. But, admitting all this to have occurred, who can believe, even if 
the soldiers had been allowed to escape, that the enemies of Christ would 
have treated these disciples with such lenity? Had it been believed by 
the Jews and the Romans, the chief priests and the elders—the enemies 
of Jesus—that “the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus,” would not 
these disciples have been arrested and tried, and made to confront these 
dignitaries of the law and thefr sleeping witnesses, and compelled ta 

4] 


642 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii, B. 2 


deliver up the stolen body or to suffer for their crime? But we hear 
not one word of all this—nothing of the arrest of the soldiers or of the 
disciples—no searching for the escaped corpse—no arraignment of the 
guilty parties through whose neglect or theft it had been abstracted! He 
who can believe any one of these improbabilities to have occurred, without evi- 
dence—yea, contrary to all reason and all testimony—is poorly fitted to 
charge the Christian with credulity ; and yet, absurd as they all appear, 
we are vompelled to subscribe to every one of them if we deny that Jecus 
rose from the dead! Is it possible, we ask, that one intelligent man of 
all these soldiers, chief priests, and elders, could have believed that the 
disciples stole the dead body of Jesus? The position is too unreason- 
able and absurd. They did not believe it themselves —they knew 
better! 

Had they believed this story, how can we account for the fact that 
they never argued it afterward, when it would have been so natural for 
them te have done so, and when it would so admirably have suited their 
purpose? Indeed, the absurd story put into the mouth of the guard 
was conjured up amid so much hurry, confusion, and trepidation, that 
it did not exhibit the usual sagacity of its authors. They seem ever 
after to have been ashamed of it themselves. Ready enough are these 
Jewish rulers and members of the Sanhedrim to persecute and arraign 
the apostles for preaching that Jesus was arisen from the dead; but 
why did they never charge home upon them the theft they had com- 
mitted? Only a few days after these events occurred, first Peter and 
John, and next the whole college of the apostles, are arrested and 
brought before the Sanhedrim! Here the apostles, in the very face of 
the great council and of the inventors of the story of the stealing of 
the body, boldly assert the resurrection of Jesus, and affirm that they 
have seen, felt,and conversed with him, after his resurrection. How 
passing strange, that in no one of these instances was the crime of 
having stolen the dead body of Jesus brought against the apostles! 
Why were they not formally accused of this theft? Why were not 
Joseph of Arimathea and the whole Roman guard instantly summoned 
and made to confront them? The great question is, the resurrection 
of Jesus, which the apostles affirm; but not one of the guard is called 
to confront them. The stealing of the body is not named! And why? 
Because the Sanhedrim did not believe the story! 

Having considered—and, as we humbly conceive, demonstrated—the 
unreasonable and unsatisfactory character of the only plea an infidel 
world has ever presented to account for the inability of the enemies 
of Jesus to produce his dead body, after the third day, we now call 


Ch. xiii.] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 643 


attention to the positive testimony in favor of the resurrection of 
Christ. 

Look at the number of the witnesses. It is written: “At the 
mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established.” This 
was not only a maxim in the Jewish law, but it has been incorporated 
in the codes and recognized in the judicial proceedings of all civilized 
lands. “Two or three witnesses” of good understanding and character, 
unimpeached and uncontradicted in their testimony, will establish any 
legally-contested fact before any enlightened civil tribunal under 
heaven! In the light of this maxim, examine the witnesses in favor of 
the resurrection of Christ. 

1. The guard of sixty soldiers tied to the city, and told the chief 
priests the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus, and never dis- 
guised the fact till bribed by large sums of money to give currency to 
the absurd story which we have considered. Let their testimony there- 
fore, free from bribery and corruption, be recorded in favor of the resur- 
rection of Jesus from the dead. 

2. Early on the third morning, as we learn by collating the 
accounts of the several evangelists, a company of women (as many 
as five or more), coming to the sepulcher with spices and incense, 
ointment and perfumes, for the purpose of embalming the dead body, 
met their risen Lord, conversed with him, and, going immediately to the 
city, were the first among his friends to depose their testimony that he 
had risen from the dead. 

3. On the same day, two disciples (not of the twelve, as it appears), 
as journeying to the village of Emmaus, met the risen Jesus on 
the way, who was “known of them in breaking of bread.” Returning 
to Jerusalem the next morning, they manfully testified that “the Lord 
was risen indeed.” 

4. For the space of forty days after his resurrection, Jesus 
appeared on various occasions to the eleven apostles, giving “many 
infallible proofs” that he “was alive after his passion,” and speaking 
to them “of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” 

5. St. Paul, in summing up to the Corinthians the witnesses of the 
resurrection of Jesus, adds to those already enumerated as many as 
“five hundred brethren,” of whom he was “seen at once;” and “last 
of all,” he says, “he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” 
Now, add together all these witnesses—the sixty soldiers, the five 
women, the two travelers to Emmaus, the eleven apostles, and St. 
Paul himself—and you have the number of at least five hundred 
and seventy-nine persons who saw the risen Jesus, and bore their testi: 


644 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


moay to the fact in question. Surely, there is no paucity as to the 
number of witnesses ! 

We now look at the character of these witnesses, and the facts con- 
nected with their testimony. 

Who were these apostles? Though not men of learning or position 
—though taken from the humble walks of life—yet they were all, so 
far as we can judge, men of strong common sense and unimpeached 
integrity. Their history and their writings are ample proof of this. 
And this much Leing conceded, we think it will also be admitted that 
if Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, then the apostles were either 
deceived themselves in asserting that he had arisen, believing the assertion 
to be true when it was not, or they knowingly deceived others, asserting for 
truth what they knew to be falsehood. If neither of these positions can 
be accredited, then it irresistibly follows that Jesus Christ did arise from 
the dead. But, we ask, is it possible that the apostles and all their co- 
witnesses could have been deceived in this matter? If they had stolen the 
body of Jesus and burnt it to ashes, or hidden it away, did they not know the 
fact? Had they not been familiarly acquainted with their Master for 
years, and did they not affirm that they had been with him again and 
again after his resurrection, under a variety of circumstances, for “ forty 
days”? Could they have been deceived as to his identity? Admitting 
that one or two might have been deluded on one or two occasions, could 
so many have been deluded on so many occasions? Slow of heart to 
believe as they were, they could not have been deceived in this matter! 
If Jesus had not arisen, his dead body was somewhere—either his 
friends or his enemies had made away with it, or they yet had it in 
keeping. His enemies had not, or they would have produced it, or 
accounted for its absence; and if his friends had his body, or had dis: 
posed of it, they knew he had not risen from thedead. Hence it seems 
impossible that the apostles could have been deceived themselves in 
this matter. If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, they knew it. 

But, lastly, can we suppose that the apostles willfully and knowingly 
in.posed upon the world, by preaching the resurrection of Christ, when 
they knew the doctrine to be false? If he had not arisen from the 
dead, they knew him to be an impostor: he had deceived them, and 
they knew it. Will rational men still cleave to an impostor, knowing 
him to be such, and sacrifice their lives to sustain the posthumous honor 
of one who has done them the deepest injury ! 

But we ask, where, among all the considerations that can influence 
the rational mind, can we find the motive that could have induced the 
apostles to proclaim, as they did, the resurrection of Jesus, knowing it 


Mh. xiii] MIRACLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 644 


tu be false? Was it for the sake of popularity, or ease, or pleasure, ot 
riches? What prospect had they of any of these? Toil and reproach, 
persecution and tribulation, bonds and imprisonment, suffering and 
death, were all they received, and all for which they could hope on 
earth! Is this the reward that can stimulate the rational mind volun- 
tarily to persist in asserting a known pernicious falsehood? No! The 
apostles were honest and sincere men. They proclaimed what they 
believed—they testified what they had seen! They knew their Master 
had arisen from the dead! Without titles, without wealth, without 
emolument, they challenged both Jews and Gentiles to the conflict, 
preached Jesus and the resurrection in the face of an opposing world, 
healed the sick and raised the dead in the name of the risen One, and 
sealed the truth of their doctrine by the sacrifice of their lives. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIII. 


Question 1. What are some of the| 7. What considerations are specited 


principal of our Saviour’s miracu- showing the absurdity of this ac- 
lous works? count? 

2. How may it be shown that they were | 8. Has infidelity ever accounted for 
real miracles, and were actually the absence of Christ’s dead body 
performed ? in any other way? 

3. What is considered the greatest of the | 9. What witnesses are enumerated as 
Saviour’s miracles? testifying to the resurrection of 

4. What facts connected with it were Christ ? 
admitted by unbelievers? 10. What are the circumstances named 

5. How should this question of fact be rendering their testimony so satis 
examined ? factory and conclusive ? 


How did the Jews account for the 
absence of the dead body of Christ? 


eo 


64¢ ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pit, B 2 


OFAP AGH Reeve 
THE PROPHECIES OF SCRIPTURE IN RELATION TO THE JEWS, 


THE second great division of the eaternal evidences of Christianvy 
is that founded on Propuecy. To this we now call attention. Proph 
ecy, taken in connection with its fulfillment, is no less miraculous thar 
are miracles technically so called. Miracles proper are miracles of 
power; but prophecies are miracles of knowledge. As the one implies 
an exercise of divine power, suspending or controlling the laws of na- 
ture beyond the ability of uncreated beings to exert, so the other im- 
plies an exhibition of divine knowledge, penetrating the distant future, 
and predicting events yet to come in a manner surpassing the skill of 
all created intelligences. The one can only be performed by Omnipo- 
tence; the other, by Omniscience. Hence, as these attributes belong 
to God alone, it necessarily follows that whatever is performed or 
sanctioned by them is stamped with the divine signature, and must be 
true. We, therefore, adopt the principle, that real miracle and real 
prophecy are both absolute and indubitable evidence of the truth of 
that which they are used to confirm. 

That this kind of testimony is of the highest possible order, and 
should command our immediate and most unreserved confidence, re- 
sults from the very constitution of our nature. Common sense teaches 
us to accredit the testimony of our own external senses when satisfied 
that they are under no deceptive illusion, and also to rely implicitly 
upon the evidence of our own experience when fully assured that there 
can be no mistake as to its teachings. And the knowledge we derive 
from these sources is as deeply stamped with certainty as any other kind 
of knowledge we can possibly acquire. Indeed, we cannot travel be- 
hind the record here furnished us either for the correction of the lessons 
of our own senses or personal experience, or with the hope of finding 
any thing more certain on which to rely. Common sense teaches us 
that if we are not certain that the lessons here taught us are true, we 
can be certain of nothing. It is not by argumentative disanisition that 
we become satisfied that none but God can perform a miracle e.cher us 


Ch. xiv.) PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO THE JEWS. CLT 


power or of knowledge, but we are taught this lesson by the dictates of 
common sense itself. Our knowledge derived from this source can nei- 
ther be rendered more nor less certain by discussion. Jn this depart- 
ment, the plain, unlettered peasant is on a level with the erudite philos- 
opher. The one, independent of all investigation, is just as well satis- 
fied as the other can be, that God only, and he to whom he imparts the 
power, can perform miracles. And as prophecy is nothing but a mira- 
ele of knowledge, every man knows by the simple exercise of his com- 
mon sense that real prophecy must flow from the divine omniscience. 
Hence it is a sure testimony of the divine legation of him who ut- 
ters it. 

In judging concerning the testimony of professed prophecy, there 
are two points to be particularly examined: First, the character of the 
prediction; secondly, the fact of the fulfillment. If the pretended pre- 
diction be a real prophecy—that is, a preannouncement of a future 
event, either so distant or so improbable or complicated as obviously 
to be beyond the power of finite minds, by any exercise of skill or sa- 
gacity, to be able to acquire a knowledge of the things it announces— 
and if it be ascertained that the facts correspond fully with the predic- 
tion, then we may conclude that we have in the case the elements of 
real prophecy. But, on the other hand, should it appear that the pre 
tended prediction is only what might have been foreseen by human se 
gacity as likely to occur, or what might be no more than a shrewd cr 
fortunate guess—or if it be found that the facts in the case do not show 
the fulfillment of the pretended prediction, in either event—we fail to 
find the elements of a real prophecy. 

To decide the question whether a given prophecy be real or surrepti- 
tious, we know of no safer or more reliable principle by which to be 
governed than the dictates of common sense. When possessed of the 
necessary information as to the facts in the case, the judgment of any im- 
partial man of common sense will enable him with little difficulty to 
distinguish between a real and a spurious prophecy. 

There are a few very simple rules which every reflecting mind wil 
be led to observe in judging the force of prophetic testimony. First, 
testimony of this kind increases generally in convincing power in pro- 
portion as the fulfillment is remote in the future from the announce 
ment of the prophecy; secondly, it also increases in proportion as the 
specifications in the prediction are increased in number ; thirdly, this 
testimony increases in force in proportion as the events predicted are 
in themselves improbable. 

To examine the predictions of Scripture generally, would require 


048 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii b. 2 


volumes, instead of a brief, concise treatise. All we propose is, a pres- 
entation of a few of the more conspicuous and important from both 
the Old and the New Testaments. We begin with the Old ‘Testament: 

I. PROPHECIES RELATING TO THE JEWISH NATION. 

We will first present some of the Scriptures, predicting calamities 
that were to befall the Jews: 

“When ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the 
pestilence among you, and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the 
enemy. And when I have broken the staff of your bread, ten women 
shall bake your bread in one oven, and they shall deliver you your 
bread again by weight; and ye shall eat, and not be satisfied. . . . And ye 
shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters... . And 
I will bring the land into desolation, and your enemies which dwell 
therein shall be astonished at it. And I will scatter you among the 
heathen; ... and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste. 
. . . And ye shall perish among the heathen. . . . And they that are 
left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands. 
- . » When they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them 
away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly.” Lev. xxvi. 

“Thou shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth. 

Thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore. . . . Thou shalt 
become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word among all nations 
whither the Lord shall lead thee. . . . The stranger that is within thee 
shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low, 
- - » Heshall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. . . . The Lord shall 
bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of. the earth, as 
swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not under- 
stand; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the per- 
son of the old, nor show favor to the young. . . . And he shall besiege 
thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down. . . . 
And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons 
and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the 
siege and in the straitness wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee. 

- . The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not ad- 
venture to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and 
tenderness, her eye shall be evil . . . toward her children which she 
shall bear; for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the 
siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy 
gates. . . . And ye shall be left few in number. . . . And ye shall be 
plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the 
Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth 


Ch. xiv.] PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO THE JEWS. b49 


even unto the other... . And among these nations shalt thou find no 


ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest... . And the Lord 
shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships; . . . and there ye shall 


be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man 
shall buy you.” Deut. xxviii. 

In these prophecies there are no less than eighteen distinct, minute, 
and striking specifications. ‘They descend, in description, to small and 
circumstantial incidents, and embrace items totally distinct from each 
other, having no mutual connection or dependence; such, for instance, 
as these: The language of their conquerors was “not to be understood” 
by the Jews; they were to be taken captive “to Egypt in ships;” 
women were to “eat the flesh of their offspring,” ete. Nor was the 
language dark and obscure, or shrouded in mysterious emblem. It 
was mostly simple narrative, recording events of an obvious and strik- 
ing nature. The besieging of cities, the slaughter of vast multi- 
tudes, the dispersion of the nation, ete.; concerning such facts as these, 
there could be no misapprehension. They were obvious to the senses 
of all. 

Observe the time and circumstances under which these predictions 
were uttered. The Israelites were yet amid their wilderness journey- 
ings, they were yet strangers and pilgrims, they had not yet crossed the 
Jordan, or reached the promised land. The Canaanites were yet to be 
rooted out, the land distributed among the tribes, and the people organ- 
ized and established as a nation. In this unsettled and precarious state 
of affairs, how could Moses, unless inspired from above, certainly and 
minutely foretell the fortunes of this people for centuries to come? 
And yet it has been demonstrated that all these wonderful prophecies 
had been delivered by Moses in the hearing of all Israel, and recorded 
in the book of the law to be laid up “ by the side of the ark,” while as 
yet this people had but an embryo nationality. 

But let us more particularly glance at some of these plain predic- 
tions, and their striking fulfillment. 

Unless divinely inspired, how could Moses so graphically predinnounce 
the “famine and pestilence” that were to come upon this people? And 
yet how literally was it fulfilled! If it be supposed that he might 
merely have conjectured the facts, and that the fulfillment was acci- 
dental, we demand, How could he have foreseen the peculiar extremities 
in the case? In the siege of Samaria, “an ass’s head was sold for fours 
score pieces of silver.” In the siege of Jerusalem, by Nebuchadnezzar, 
“the famine prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the peo: 
ple of the land.” And who can read Josephus and not be overwhelmed 


650 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


with the view of the sufferings of the people fro: the raging famine 
during the siege by the Romans? But it was foretold that they should 
“eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters,” and that even “ ten- 
der and delicate women” should eat the flesh of their own children. 
At ‘three different times, according to authentic history, was this re- 
markable prediction fulfilled. Once at the siege of Samaria by the 
Syrians, six hundred years after the announcement of the prophecy, 
when “two women gave up their children to be eaten.” 2 Kings vi. 28, 
29. Again it was fulfilled, nine hundred years after the prediction, in 
the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, when it was declared, “The 
hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children.” Lam. iv. 
10. Again, after the lapse of fifteen hundred years from the predic- 
tion, it was verified in the dreadful siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, 
when a noble woman, pressed to madness by the famine, killed and ate 
her own sucking child. (Josephus.) 

How could mere human sagacity foresee that the Jews would become 
a numerous and prosperous people, and yet their land be reduced to 
“desolation ;” and the people be “minished,” and become “few in 
number.” And yet it is declared: “ How doth the city sit solitary that 
was full of people! . . . Judah is gone into captivity because of affliction, 
ind because of great servitude; she dwelleth among the heathen, she 
indeth no rest.” Lam. i. 1, 8. Josephus testifies that there fell, during 
he siege, by the hands of the Romans, and by their own faction, one 
aillion one hundred thousand Jews; and ninety-seven thousand Jews 
were carried into captivity by the Romans. 

Moses had foretold, many centuries before, that the Lord would “root 
them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indigna- 
tion” (Deut. xxix. 28); and Josephus and the Roman historians have 
recorded the fulfillment. 

But the Jews were to be berne “in ships,” and sold into Egypt as 
slaves till the market should be so glutted that “no man would buy 
them.” Josephus testifies that the captives taken by the Romans, 
“who were above seventeen years of age,” were sent to Egypt; and it 
cannot well be doubted that, as they were “in bonds,” they were con- 
veyed “in ships”—for the Romans then had a fleet in the Mediter- 
ranean. And it is said, the market was so overstocked that they were 
sold for the merest trifle—so that the words of Moses were verified 
“No ian shall buy you.” 

But it was farther predicted that the Jews should be dispersed among 
all nations—“ plucked from off” their cwn land, and “scattered among 
all people, from one end of the earth sven unto the other.” Look at 


Ch, xiv.] PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO THE JEWS. 651 


the fulfillment. First, the ten tribes are carried captive by the Assy- 
rians; next, the two other tribes by Nebuchadnezzar; finally, the 
Romans completed the dispersion by taking away “their place and 
nation.” 

For a long time after this, the poor “wandering Jews” were not al- 
lowed to set foot in Jerusalem, and at one time they were forbidden to 
press with their feet the soil of Palestine. Still they survive—not “ de- 
swoyed utterly,” but exiles from their own land, and disconsolate 
“strangers and sojourners” in all lands. “What a marvelous thing 
it this,” says Bishop Newton, “that after so many wars, battles, and 
sieges—after so many rebellions, massacres, and persecutions—after so 
many years of captivity, slavery, and misery—they are not destroyed 
utterly ; and, though scattered among all people, yet subsist a distinct 
people by themselves. Where is any thing like this to be found in all 
the histories and in all the nations under the sun?” 

They were to be restless—finding no ease; neither were “the soles of 
their feet” to “have rest.” And to what land or clime have they not 
wandered or been, driven? They have trodden the burning deserts of 
the South, and waded the drifting snows of the North, but a perma- 
nent resting-place they have found nowhere. 

Again, how could Moses know centuries beforehand that the nation 
by whom they should be conquered, and subjugated, and dispersed 
from their own land, throughout all the earth, should come “from far, 
from the end of the earth, swift as the eagle flieth, whose tongue” they 
should “not understand,” and should be “a nation of fierce counte- 
nance”? The remoteness of the Romans from the land of Judea, the 
warlike character of their nation, the rapidity of their conquests, the 
fact that their military ensign was the “eagle,” and that the Jews 
knew nothing of their “Janguage ;” these notorious facts most exactly 
and specifically verify the fulfillment of the prophecy. 

Once more, they were to become “an astonishment, a proverb, and a 
by-word among all nations.” How literally has this been fulfilled! 
Pagans, Mohammedans, and Christians, however much they may differ 
from each other, have all agreed in meting out to that people, who had 
“despised and rejected” the Holy One, the same kind of treatment 
which the wicked Jews had awarded to their Messiah. In all lands, 
this cast-off and down-trodden people have been despised, persecuted, 
and abused. In all the ages of their banishment, and in all countries, 
they have eyer been under the ban—like the unclean spirit, “seeking 
rest, and finding none.” If in a few places temporary respite has been 
allowed them, this has been the exception; the general conduct of the 


652 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. dix Bes 


nations of the eaith toward the Jews has been a virtual fulfillment of 
the prophetic imprecation of that deluded people, who, eighteen cent- 
uries ago, exclaimed : “His blood be upon us and upon our children!” 
Yet for all this, like “the burning bush” seen by Moses, they are “not 
consumed.” The hand of God is still over them; and, though dis- 
persed among all natizas, they are kept from being identified with or ab- 
sorbed by any. They have everywhere remained a distinct and pecu- 
liar people, awaiting the fulfillment of another prophecy by their con- 
version and restoration. “What nation hath subsisted,” says Bishop 
Newton, “as a distinct people in their own country so long as these have 
done in their dispersion into all countries? And what a standing mir- 
acle is this exhibited to the view and observation of the whole world! 
Here are instances of prophecies delivered above three thousand years 
ago, and yet, as we see, fulfilling in the world at this very time; and 
what stronger proof can we desire of the divine legation of Moses? 
How these instances may affect others, I know not; but, for myself, I 
must acknowledge they not only convince but amaze and astonish me 
beyond expression.” Could human sagacity have uttered these proph- 
ecies? If not, then were they given by inspiration of Heaven; and if 
bo, as Keith has observed, then “the Bible 7s true—infidelity is con- 
founded forever, and we may address its patrons in the language of St. 
Paul: ‘Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish !’” 

Before we close our notice of the fulfillment of prophecy in relation 
to the Jews, we call attention to that remarkable prediction concerning 
their restoration from the Babylonian captivity, effected through the 
instrumentality of Cyrus, the Persian king. 

In the forty-fourth and forty-fifth chapters of Isaiah, that prophet 
utters on this subject the following prediction : 

“Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, . . . that saith to Jerusalem, 
Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, 
and I will raise up the decayed places thereof; that saith to the deep, Be 
dry, and I will dry up thy rivers; that saith of Cyrus, He is my shep- 
herd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, 
Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid, 
Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right-hand I have 
holden to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings 
to open before him the two-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be 
shut. . . . I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder 
the bars of iron. And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and 
hidden riches of secret places.” 

The first thing to be noted in relation to this astonishing prediction 


Uh. xiv.| PROPIIECIRS IN RELATION TO TITR JEWS. 653 


is, that it was uttered by Isaiah, according to all chronology, more than 
a century before Cyrus was born, and more than two centuries before 
its fulfillment in the taking of Babylon. 

Josephus records that Cyrus, after he had entered Babylon, was 
shown a copy of the prophecy of Isaiah, in which the name of the Per- 
sian monarch was mentioned as the instrument through whom the Jew- 
ish people should be restored to their own land. He adds, also, that 
this restoration under Cyrus occurred just seventy years after the Jews 
had been carried into captivity; thereby fulfilling the prediction of 
Jeremiah, uttered before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnez- 
zar, that after they had served the King of Babylon and his posterity 
seventy years they should be restored to the land of their fathers. Jose- 
phus also testifies that the prediction of Isaiah concerning Cyrus had 
been given “one hundred and forty years before the temple was de- 
molished.” So that there can be no doubt that this prediction, in 
which the Persian king is named and his taking of the city of Baby- 
lon so graphically described, had been published among the Jews, and 
that its inspired author was dead long before the event took place. 
Were there no other specification in the prophecy, but simply the nam- 
ing of Cyrus as the instrument through whom the Jews should be de- 
livered from their captivity, this would be one of the most remarkable, 
and, to my mind, one of the most convincing, prophecies of the Bible. 
But look at the number and striking character of the specifications; 
and then the wonderful exactitude of the fulfillment. 

Cyrus is not only God’s “shepherd ” and his “ anointed ” to “ perform 
his pleasure” in the deliverance of his people, but through his instru- 
mentality Jerusalem is to be inhabited, the rivers are to be dried up, 
the cities to be rebuilt, Jerusalem to be rebuilt, the foundation of the 
temple to be relaid, the loins of kings to be loosed, the gates of brass 
opened, the bars of iron broken, and the treasures of darkness given ta 
Cyrus! Here are ten distinct specifications, all plain and obvious to the 
senses of every beholder, so that misapprehension is an impossibirity. 
But next, behold the fulfillment! Every single specification, accord- 
ing to the most authentic and uncontradicted testimony of all ancient 
history, is most fully and most clearly fulfilled. Who can doubt that 
the cities of Judea were rebuilt after the return of the Jews? that 
Jerusalem, their dilapidated capital, was again reared up? that the 
Jews returned, and again dwelt in their city? that the channel of the 
Euphrates was dried up, and its waters turned in another direction ? 
that the temple was again erected under the superintendence cf Ezra 
and Nehemiah? that the gates of brass and the bars of iron, placed at 


654 ELEMENTS UF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 2 


the passage of the river, gave way for the entrance of Cyrus and his 
army? that the “loins” of Belshazzar were “loosed,” and that his 
knees were smiting together, and that he was quaking with alarm from 
the “ handwriting upon the wall,” at the very moment when Cyrus was 
entering with his hosts by the “two-leaved gates” that had been left 
open? and that Cyrus soon possessed himself, amid the darkness of the 
night, of the immense “treasures” of that wealthy metropolis? Thus 
all the specifications were met. The prediction and fulfillment em- 
braced each other. The evangelical prophet was seen to be a faithful 
chronicler of posthumous history. His mission was honored with the 
seal of Heaven’s authority; and an evidence from prophecy in favor 
of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures was here exhibited for the 
confirmation of the Church, too overwhelmingly conclusive to be de- 
molished by the assaults of infidelity. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIV. 
Question 1. What is the second grand; 7. What three rules are given for judg- 


division of external evidence? ing of the force of prophetic testi- 

2. In what sense is the evidence from mony? 
prophecy miraculous ? 8. What predictions concerning the 

3. Is the evidence from prophecy abso- Jews are given, and can their ful- 
lutely conclusive ? fillment be shown? 

4. What is the character of the evidence; 9. What was the prediction concerning 
based on our own senses or expe- their restoration from the Baby- 
rience? lonian captivity, and how was it 

5. In judging of the evidence from fulfilled ? 
prophecy, what two points are spe- | 10. What number of specifications are 
cially important? found in the prediction here given? 


8 What are the elements of a real} 11. Can it be shown how each was ful 
prophecy ? filled ? 


Ch. xv.! PROPHECIES—NINEVEH. BABYLON. TYRE. 654 


CHAPTER XV. 
PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO NINEVEH, BABYLON, AND TYRE. 


Bestpes the prophecies concerning the Jewish nation, some of 
which we have briefly noticed, the Old Testament records many strik- 
ing predictions in relation to several of the neighboring nations and 
cities, which have been fulfilled in a very exact and impressive manner. 
Our limits will not allow us to enter into a particular discussion of 
these prophecies, but we would refer those who wish to examine them 
particularly to the writings of Bishop Newton and the Rev. Alexander 
Keith. 

We will, however, make a few remarks in reference to Nineveh, Bob- 
ylon, and Tyre. 

Nineveh was the ancient capital of Assyria, and was at one time “an 
exceeding great city, three days’ journey” in circuit, and numbering 
more than six hundred thousand souls (Jonah iii. 3). It was in a 
prosperous condition up to the period at which it comes under the 
notice of prophecy. Nahum is the prophet who utters the prediction 
concerning this city, and Diodorus Siculus is the principal historian 
who records the fulfillment. 

The prophet, while yet the hum of business and the noise of revelry 
and dissipation were heard in the streets and halls of this wicked and 
voluptuous metropolis, lifted up his voice and pronounced its coming 
doom. He declared that, suddenly and unexpectedly, the city should 
be overtaken with a complete and final overthrow. Amid the drunk 
enness and debauchery of the king, his courtiers, and his soldiers, they 
were to be defeated and despoiled of their wealth. With flood an‘ 
flame, their proud capital was to be totally and irretrievably ruined 
The prophet’s words are: “The Lord will make an utter end of the 
place. Affliction shall not rise up the second time; she is empty, void, 
and waste: the Lord will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a 
wilderness. How is she become a desolation—a place for beasts to lie 
down in!” 

In a little over one century from the announcement of the approach 


B56 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PArwBe2 


ing ruin by the inspired prophet, all that he had spoken came to pass 
—that is, the calamities threatened were realized—the judgment came 
as it had been foretold. But it had also been foretold that this: judg- 
ment should never be removed; and there, upon that devoted spot, it 
rests to this day! In the second century, Lucian searched for the spot 
where Nineveh once stood, but he found no vestige of it remain- 
ing, and declared that “none could tell where it was once situated.” 
And till recently none could point to the ground pressed by the foot- 
steps of Jonah, as he preached repentance to the Ninevites. Let the 
proud skeptic, before he scoffs at the prophecies of the Bible, account 
for the standing miracle we here behold! When that rich metropolis 
of the first great empire of earth was yet standing in all its greatness 
and glory, who but Omniscience could have foreseen that so soon it 
would perish and be blotted out forever? How true are the predictions 
of Heaven! Where God has made a record by the pen of prophecy, 
neither the mutations of earth nor the ravages of time can efface the 
changeless impress! 

Babylon, the renowned metropolis of Chaldea, figures largely in 
prophetic scripture. Mr. Richard Watson remarks that “the reasons 
why prophecies, so numerous and particular, were recorded concerning 
Babylon, appear to have been: 1. That Babylon was the great oppressor 
of the Jews. 2. That it was the type of all the powerful persecuting 
enemies of the Church of God, especially of Rome, and in its fate they 
may read their own. 3. That the accomplishment of prophecy, in the 
destruction of so eminent an empire, might give a solemn testimony to 
the truth of the Scriptures to the whole earth, and to all ages,” 

To transcribe all the prophetic scriptures relating to Babylon, would 
require more space than our plan will allow for the whole subject. All 
we propose is, a glance at the nature of the Christian evidence derived 
from this source. The most numerous and important predictions under 
this head are furnished us by the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah. The 
words of the former, so far as the taking of Babylon by Cyrus and the 
releasing of the Jews from captivity are concerned, have already been 
noticed. 

We now call attention to the predictions concerning the complete 
destruction of Babylon, and the utter desolation by which the place it 
once occupied with so much pride and pomp was to be cursed. In the 
words of Jeremiah, it was foretold, at a time when Babylon was in all 
its pride and greatness, that Babylon should “be desolate forever. . . . 
Every purpose of the Lord shall be performed against Babylon, to 
make the land of Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant... . 


Ch. xv.] PROPIHRCIES—NINEVEH, BABYLON, TYRE. 657 


Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling-place for dragons, an astonish- 
ment and a hissing, without an inhabitant. . . . Her cities are a deso- 
lation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, 
neither doth any son of man pass thereby. . . . The wild beasts of the 
desert with the wild beasts of the islands shall dwell there, and the owls 
shall dwell therein; and it shall be no more inhabited forever; neither 
shall it be dwelt 1. from generation to generation. As God overthrew 
Sodom and Gomorrah, and the neighbor cities thereof, saith the Lord, 
80 shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein.” 
Jer. 1, li. 

Che Prophet Isaiah speaks as follows: “ Babylon, the glory of king- 
doms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God 
overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither 
shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the 
Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold 
there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses 
shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs 
shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall ery in their 
desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces.” Isa. xiii. 

The fact is unquestionable that these predictions were uttered, and 
recorded in the sacred writings of the Jews, while Babylon was yet 
in its greatest strength and prosperity. According to the chronology 
of Horne, Isaiah commenced his prophetic career more than eight 
hundred years before Christ; Jeremiah more than six hundred years 
before Christ; and Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar and 
the Jews carried captive six hundred and six years before Christ — 
while Jeremiah was exercising the prophetic office. But the Jews had 
been seventy years in their captivity before they were delivered by Cyrus; 
hence it is evident that Isaiah must have delivered his predictions con- 
cerning the downfall of Babylon at least two centuries before these 
calamities commenced; and Jeremiah must have delivered his predic- 
tions on the subject about a century before the conquest of Babylon by 
Cyrus, for he died, as is supposed, in Egypt, in a year or two after the 
commencement of the captivity, having exercised his prophetic office 
more than forty years. 

The evidence, then, is complete, that while Babylon was yet the most 
wealthy and prosperous city the world had ever seen, and all the sur- 
rounding country unparalleled in fertility, and while the powerful and 
haughty monarch, peacefully occupying his throne of grandeur, was 
boastfully exclaiming, “Is not this great Babylon which J have built 
hy the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty ?”—while 

42 


658 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pieba 


this secuy was transpiring in that “wonder of the world,” the metrop- 
olis of this great empire—it was even then recorded upon the prophetie 
page of Isaiah: “ Babylon is fallen, is fallen!” 

That the fulfillment of these prophecies is wonderfully exact and strik- 
ing, cannot be denied. Historians and travelers who have described the 
fate of Babylon, and portrayed the astounding desolation and ruin which 
for ages past have reigned throughout all that once prosperous country, 
have been unable to perform this task in more truthful or graphic lan- 
guage than that furnished by the inspired prophets three thousand years 
ago, when the Euphrates flowed through the most fertile plains upon earth, 
and that majestic city—the mistress of the nations—sat upon her banks. 
What philosopher or politician, gazing then upon Babylon—with her 
sixty miles of circumference, inclosed by a wall eighty-seven feet thick 
and three hundred and fifty feet high—with her Temple of Belus, the 
most magnificent structure the world ever saw—with her wonderful 
hanging-gardens, and her two hundred and fifty imposing towers, some 
of them looking down upon the city from an altitude of more than six 
hundred feet, and casting their shade far upon the surrounding plain— _ 
what philosopher, politician, or “wise man of the East,” under such 
circumstances, by any human foresight or sagacity, could have pre- 
dicted the ruin and desolation which have long brooded over that ill- 
fated region ? 

In describing the district where Babylon once stood, Mignan says: 
“Our path lay through the great mass of ruined heaps on the site of 
‘shrunken Babylon ;’ and I am perfectly incapable of conveying an 
adequate idea of the dreary, lonely nakedness that appeared before us.” 
Porter testifies that “a silence profound as the grave reigns throughout 
the ruins. Babylon is now a silent scene—a sublime solitude.” Rau- 
wolf, in the sixteenth century, says: “The eye wanders over a barren 
desert, in which the ruins are nearly the only indication that it ever has 
been inhabited.” Keppel remarks: “It is impossible to behold the 
scene and not be reminded how exactly the predictions of Isaiah and 
Jeremiah have been fulfilled.” The place is also full of “doleful crea- 
tures.” The lion has his lair among the ruins and caverns; the hyena, 
the jackal, the owl, and the bat, are there in great numbers. Mignan 
adds: “ Venomous reptiles are very numerous throughout the ruins. . . . 
On pacing over the loose stones and fragments of brick-work which lay 
scattered through the immense fabric, and surveying the sublimity of the 
ruins, I naturally recurred to the time when these walls stood proudly 
in their original splendor; when the halls were the scenes of festive 
magnificence, and when they resounded to the voices of those whom 


Ch. xv.] PROPHECIES—NINEVEH, BABYLON, TYRE. 059 


death has long since swept from the earth. This very pile was once the 
seat of luxury and vice, now abandoned to decay, and exhibiting a 
melancholy instance of the retribution of Heaven. It stands alone. 
The solitary habitation of the goat-herd marks not the forsaken site.” 
Frederick, speaking of the ruins of Babylon, says: “Neither of the 
wall nor of the ditch has been seen the least vestige by any modern 
traveler. Within twenty-one miles distance along the Euphrates, and 
twelve miles across it in breadth, I was unable to perceive any thing that 
could admit of my imagining that either a wall or ditch had existed 
within this extensive area.” Keppel adds: “The divine predictions 
against Babylon have been so totally fulfilled in the appearance of the 
ruins, that Iam disposed to give the fullest signification to the words 
of Jeremiah: ‘The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken.’ ” 

Porter describes his emotions, on looking upon the scene, in the fol- 
_lowing language: “The whole view was particularly solemn. The 
majestic stream of the Euphrates, wandering in solitude like a pilgrim 
monarch through the silent ruins of his devastated kingdom, stil] 
appeared a noble river, under all the disadvantages of its desert-tracked 
course. Its banks were hoary with reeds, and the gray osier willows 
were yet there on which the captives of Israel hung up their harps, 
and, while Jerusalem was not, refused to be comforted. But how is the 
rest of the scene changed since then! At that time those broken hills 
were palaces—those long, undulating mounds, streets—this vast. soli- 
tude, filled with the busy subjects of the proud daughter of the East; 
now, wasted with misery, her habitations are not to be found, and, for 
herself, the worm is spread over her.” 

We will conclude our remarks, in reference to Babylon, by a quota- 
tion from the Rev. Alexander Keith: “Has not every purpose of the 
Lord been performed against Babylon? What mortal shall give a 
negative answer to the questions subjoined by the author of these very 
prophecies ?—‘ Who hath declared this from ancient time? Who hath 
told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no God 
beside me—declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times 
the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, an 
I will do all my pleasure.’ The records of the human race, it has been 
said with truth, do not present a contrast more striking than that 
between the primeval magnificence of Babylon and its long desolation. 
How few spots are there on earth of which we have so clear and faith- 
ful a picture as prophecy gave of fallen Babylon, when no spot on 
earth resembled it less than its present desolate, solitary site! Or could 
any prophecies respecting any single place be more precise, or wonder 


660 KLEMENTIS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


ful, 01 numerous, ur true, or more gradually accomplished thrcugh 
many generations ?” 

Tyre was another ancient city, once famed for its wealth and commer- 
cial importance. During its days of prosperity it was no less remarkable 
for its luxury, pride, and wickedness, of almost every description, than 
for its opulence and commercial advantages. As a just punishment for 
the abominations of its inhabitants, the prophets had predicted its over- 
throw. In these predictions there are several remarkable specifica- 
tions which have been fulfilled with great exactness. ‘lo some of these 
we will call attention. 

First. It was foretold that Tyre should be destroyed by “ Nebuchad- 
nezzar, King of Babylon.” And we. have the testimony of Josephus, 
that this Chaldean king, with his armies, besieged ‘Tyre for thirteen 
years. He demolished the strong walls of the city, put to the sword 
the inhabitants who failed to escape in their vessels, plundered the city 
of its immense treasure, and left it a desolate ruin. 

Secondly. It was foretold that, after an interval of seventy years, the 
city should be restored, and the inhabitants should return to their mer- 
chandise and their gain; and again, that it should be destroyed the 
second time, and that after this the people would turn away from their 
idolatry to the worship of the true God. Again, it was foretold that the 
city should be at length so totally destroyed as to become “like the top 
of a rock—a place to spread nets upon;” and that it should “be built 
no more.” 

After the destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, it was rebuilt on 
an island a short distance from the site of the old city. It was pre- 
dicted that this second city should be consumed by frre. This overthrow 
of the second or insular Tyre was the work of Alexander the Great, 
It required him a seven months’ siege and immense labor to take the 
city. Using the rubbish and the dilapidated materials of the old city, 
he built a causeway from the main land to the island, so that his forces 
could pass over and bring their engines of war to play upon the walls 
of the city. Alexander exercised great cruelty toward such as fell into 
his hands in the taking of Tyre. Kight thousand he put to the sword, 
two thousand he crucified, and thirty thousand he sold for slaves. 

The taking of the city by Nebuchadnezzar is foretold by Ezekiel. 
Ezek. xxvi. 7-12. 

The seventy years of desolation that were to intervene before the res- 
toration of the city were foretold by Isaiah and Jeren,jah. Isa. xxiii. 
15-18; Jer. xxv. 11, 12. 

The taking of the insular city by Alexander was predicted by 


Ch. xv.] PROPHECLES—NINEVEH, BABYLON, TYRE 661 


Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah. Isa. xxiii. 6; Ezek. xxvii. 3Z; Zech. 
ix. 3, 4. 

That all these prophecies were fulfilled with great exactitude, is tes- 
tified by the histories of Josephus, Diodorus Siculus, and Quintus Cur- 
tius. 

But the point which we wish more particularly to note is, the pre- 
diction that Tyre should be finally destroyed, and so utterly blotted 
out as to become “like the top of a rock,” and “should be. built no 
more.” 

Ezekiel says: “And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break 
down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her 
like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in 
the midst of the sea.” Ezek. xxvi. 4,5. Again, in the fourteenth 
verse, he repeats: “And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou 
shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more.” 
Again: “I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more.” 
Verse 21. 

In reference to these prophecies, there is a seeming discrepancy—Tyre 
is to “be no more,” and yet it is still to be “like the top of a rock—a 
place to spread nets upon.” But how exactly is this explained by the 
event of the fulfillment! for the old part of the city has never been 
rebuilt—* thou shalt be built no more;” but where the insular city 
stood there are a few miserable inhabitants who subsist mainly by fish 
ing, and “spread their nets” to dry “upon the rock.” 

Who can fail to notice the exact accomplishment of the distinct 
items in these prophecies? Alexander, in the taking of Tyre, formed 
a “mound from the continent to the island, and the ruins of old Tyre 
afforded ready materials for the purpose. The soil and rubbish were 
gathered and heaped; and the mighty conqueror, who afterward failed 
in raising again any of the ruins of Babylon, cast those of Tyre into 
the sea, and scraped her very dust from her. Volney said, in his “ Ruins,” 
that “the whole village of Tyre contains only fifty or sixty poor fami- 
lies, who live obscurely on the produce of their little ground and a tr 
fling fishery.” With this description agrees that of travelers generally. 
Bruce says: “Tyre is a rock whereon fishers dry their nets.” 

Cotovicus visited Syria in 1598: He testifies that “Tyre appears to 
be utterly ruined, so that it has ceased to be any longer a city, and 
only some inconsiderable vestiges of her former ruins are now visible. 
If you except a few arches and baths, and some ruined walls and col: 
lapsed towers, and mere rubbish, there is now nothing of Tyre to be 
discerned,” 


662 KLEMENYTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


Maundrell says: “On the north side it has an old, ungarrisoned 
Turkish castle, besides which you see nothing but a mere Babel of 
broken walls, pillars, vaults, etc., there being not so much as one entire 
house left; its present inhabitants only a few poor wretches, harboring 
themselves in the vaults, and subsisting chiefly on fishing, who seem to 
be preserved in this place by Divine Providence, as a visible argument 
how God has fulfilled his word concerning Tyre, that it should be ‘as 
the top of a rock—a place for fishers to dry their nets on,’ ” 

That we may see the conclusive force of the argument from prophecy, 
so far as the fate of Tyre, Babylon, Nineveh, and other ancient cities, 
is concerned, it is only necessary for us to reflect that the predictions 
concerning any one city can be applied to zt alone. If the prophets 
were not divinely inspired, but announced their predictions by mere 
human sagacity or guess, how happens it that they were never in error, 
that their guess was never wrong, and their sagacity never at fault? 
Why is it that the predictions concerning Babylon were not met in the 
case of Tyre, and those relating to Tyre in the case of Babylon? As 
Dr. Nelson has sensibly remarked : “Suppose it had been said of some 
other city besides Babylon, that it should become pools of water, and 
never more inhabited; may not our curiosity be somewhat excited when 
we notice that, of the thousand proud and wicked cities around, the 
prophet did not happen to write these things of any, Babylon excepted ? 
And had they been written of any other one city, town, or village, that 
was or has been upon the face of the earth, we know of none where 
their truth could be seen. These, and the other particulars we have 
noticed, came to pass many centuries after these books of prophecy 
were written. May we not inquire, with some degree of wonder: Sup- 
pose some writer of the Old Testament had happened to conjecture and 
write concerning Damascus, Sidon, Jerusalem, Jericho, Nineveh, or any 
city, town, or village, except Tyre, that the soil on which it stood should 
be scraped away, and fishermen’s nets rest upon its nakedness, who 
could point to its accomplishment? On the broad surface of the earth, 
or along the protracted shores of the ocean, the prophet was surely 
fortunate to hit upon the only spot where these things did happen. 
Long and dreadful calamities were threatened to Jerusalem; but sup- 
pose it had Leen said that owls and tigers should inhabit pleasant. pal- 
aces there, how many thousands now would clap their hands, rejoicing 
that such a conjecture was ever made! Suppose some one, two 
thousand years ago, had ventured to guess that the time would 
come when a shepherd would be afraid to drive his flock where Pal- 
myra of the desert then stood, or through Athens, Ephesus, or Rome 


Ch. xv.] PROPHECIES—NINEVEH, BABYLON, TYKE. 668 


—Rame any spot you please, but one—and where would his reputation 
stand ?” 

Another thing to be considered in regard to these predictions con- 
cerning particular cities is, that the events foretold are often the most 
improbable that, according to human reason and foresight, could well 
be imagined. How strangely improbable was it that the great Nineveh 
should be so wiped from existence that none could tell where once she 
stood! How astonishing that the mighty Babylon should be doomed 
the fee-simple and uncontested heritage of “doleful creatures,” ravenous 
beasts, and poisonous reptiles; and that those rich and fertile plains 
should be consigned to remediless and perpetual sterility! And how 
marvelous that the wealthy and magnificent Tyre, at that time the 
mistress of the ocean and the greatest commercial emporium of the 
world, and so favorably situated for a perpetual career of wealth, 
prosperity, and importance, should so soon become a desolation, 
and the very “dust be scraped” from where she stood and cast into 
the sea! Though more than two thousand years have passed since 
the prophetic word was uttered, yet to this day the curious traveler, 
as he looks upon the spot where ancient Tyre once rose in so much 
magnificence and grandeur, may behold in the “ fishermens’ nets” 
whitening “upon the top of the rock” the “finger of God” pointing to 
the verification of prophecy, as a demonstration to the world, through 
its successive ages, that the Bible is true. The mightiest achievements 
of human genius and power, the admiration of nations, and the “won- 
der of the world,” are made tributary to the divine behests; and whether 
in smoldering ruins or in dreary wastes they yet exist, or whether they 
have passed from earth away, leaving no trace behind—in either case, 
those ruins and those wastes, or the fact that none such exist, shall stand 
before the world as Heayen’s visible and abiding witness, that “holy 
men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 


664 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XY. 


Question 1. What prophecy concerning| 7. What travelers have described the 


Nineveh is quoted ? «uins of Babylon, as foretold by 
2. How is its fulfillment shown? prophecy ? 
3. How long before the event had the{ 8. For what was Tyre once remarkable? 


overthrow of that city been pre-| 9. What predictions are quoted con- 


dicted ? cerning this city? 
4 What reasons may be assigned for the} 10. How is a seeming discrepancy in the 

fact that Babylon figures so largely prophecy explained? 

in prophecy? 11. What travelers are quoted concern- 
5, What prophets furnish the most of ing Tyre? 

these predictions ? 12. How were the predictions fulfilled, 
5 “numerate some of the most strik- and what is the proof? 


ing, and show how they were ful-] 13. What remarkable characteristic had 
tilled. all these predictions? 


Oh. xvi.) PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSTATI. 665 


CHAPTER XVI. 
PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSIAH. 


In considering the prophecies respecting Messiah, we can but bi efly 
glance at a few of the most important. Although the genuineness and 
authenticity of the Old Testament, containing these prophecies, have 
been sufficiently established in a preceding chapter; yet it may be 
proper here to remark that, in reference to the subject now before us 
we have a pledge against the possibility of corruption or interpolation 
that does not apply so forcibly to any other portion of the Old Testa: 
ment. This is furnished us by the fact that the Jews, the original and 
special guardians of these Scriptures, have still in their possession the 
same Old Testament which they profess to have received from the be- 
ginning; and this Jewish copy perfectly corresponds with that now in 
use among Christians. And as the Jews are known to have ever 
been the bitterest enemies of Christianity, we may be certain that 
they never would have changed any of those predictions concerning 
Messiah so as to favor the Christian cause. Could they have been 
tempted to undertake such a fraud, they unquestionably would have 
aimed at such alterations as would have made against instead of for 
Christianity. But while the facts just stated secure us against the pos- 
sibility of any corruption of the record since the coming of Christ, the 
existence of the Septuagint version, and of the Samaritan copy of the 
Pentateuch, and various other considerations set forth in a former 
chapter, demonstrate that there could have been no fraudulent altera- 
tions made in these writings for centuries before. 

We have every evidence, then, that the nature of the subject admits 
to satisfy us that all those predictions in the Old Testament, upon 
which Christians rely as pointing to Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. 
were written many ages before the coming of our Saviour. 

The evidence of Christianity derived from this source may be viewed 
in its application, either against the Jew or against the infidel. In the 
former case, if we can show that these predictions are fulfilled in Jesus 
of Nazareth, and never have been or can be fulfilled in any other per. 


066 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


son, the Jew will necessarily be compelled to admit the truth of Chris: 
tianity; but in the controversy with infidelity more will be requisite. 
We must not only show that the prophecies are clearly fulfilled in 
Jesus Christ, but that they are such as could have proceeded from none 
but God. If these two points be established, then the truth of Chris. 
tianity will be demonstrated. That the Jewish nation had for many 
senturies been looking forward to the advent of an illustrious Deliverer, 
or Messiah, and that this fact was known to the surrounding nations, 
cannot be disputed; but the question before us is, Was that Messiah 
clearly predicted? and were those predictions verified in the person and 
history of Jesus? 

The predictions of the Old Testament relating to Messiah are ex- 
ceedingly numerous. Bes:de types, many of which are remarkably 
plain and striking, and remote allusions, and figurative expressions, 
which evidently refer to Christ, though with a degree of indirectness, 
there are as many as a hundred passages making a plain and direct ref: 
erence to him; any one of which, in its fulfillment, furnishes proof that 
it could only have proceeded from Omniscience. What, then, must be 
the weight of the testimony when all these evidences are combined ? 

The first intimation of a coming Messiah is found in a laconic sen 
tence delivered almost immediately after the fall. It was there an- 
nounced that the “seed of the woman should bruise the head of the 
serpent.” In this prediction is clearly foretold that unmitigated war- 
fare between good and evil, light and darkness, holiness and sin—the 
kingdom of God on the one hand, and the kingdom of Satan on the 
other—which then commenced, and which in every age and in every 
part of the world has been perpetuated to the present day. We wit- 
ness it in the crime of Cain and in the faith of Abel, in the preaching 
of Enoch and Noah and in the wickedness of the antediluvians, in the 
patriarchal, Jewish, and Christian dispensations, and in every age and 
everywhere, in the efforts of the bad to corrupt the good, and of the 
good to reform the bad. Now, we ask, who but Omniscience could, in 
the world’s infancy, have pictured so truthfully its history for all time 
to come? 

This } romise was afterward given in an enlarged form to Abraham: 
“I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand 
whick is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his 
enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” 
Gen. xxii. 17, 18. Here we see not only the numerous posterity of 
abraham foretold, but also the fact that Messiah was to descend from 
aima, and that all nations were to share the blessings of his reign, 


Sh xvi.j PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSIAH. 667 


We will now call attention to some of those prophecies of Messiah 
more specific in their character. 

1. The te at which he was to appear was distinctly noted in 
prophecy: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver 
from between his feet, until Shiloh come.” Gen. xlix. 10. In this pas- 
sage one particular is fixed as to the time of Messiah’s advent. He 
was to come before the scepter had departed from Judah. Dr. Clarke 
thinks the true reading of this passage requires the word tribe instead 
scepter. If this be correct, then the meaning is, that Shiloh must ap- 
pear before Judah shall cease to exist as a distinct tribe. And so he 
did—for this distinction of the tribes was not confounded and lost till 
the nationality of the Jews was destroyed by the Romans a short time 
after Christ. But let the word be taken as we have it in our version, 
“scepter,” and it may apply either to the political or ecclesiastical 
“scepter.” It is well known that the Romans at the time of our Sav- 
iour, though they had conquered and brought the Jews under tribute, 
did not interfere at all with their religious institutions; and as religion 
and politics in the Jewish economy were one united system, the Jews 
were still allowed, to a great extent, to govern themselves; so that 
when Jesus appeared, the “scepter” had not yet “departed from Judah 
nor a lawgiver from between his feet.” The Jewish kings were of the 
family of David, of the tribe of Judah, u p to the time of the captivity; 
and afterward their governors. whether under the Persians, Greeks, or 
Romans, were continued in the same line. Indeed, when the ten tribes 
revolted, the tribe of Benjamin was blended with that of Judah; by 
it the authority of the nation was ever wielded—from it the nation 
took its name. 

The principal members of their Sanhedrim and their chief rulers, 
though their dominion was sometimes interrupted by foreign interfer- 
ence, always belonged to the tribe of Judah. Thus we see that up 
to the coming of Jesus the “scepter,” in an important sense, was re- 
tained by “Judah,” and a “lawgiver from between his feet,” was rec- 
ognized. But very soon after that period that “scepter” and “law- 
giver” departed ; and, in the necessity of the case, must have departed 
forever—for their tribes have been confounded, and their nationality 
destroyed for many centuries. The “scepter” has “departed from 
Judah,” and “Shiloh” has “come.” Let the wandering and commin- 
gled tribes read this prophecy, and believe in Jesus. 

Again, the Prophet Daniel, about six hundred years before Christ 
foretold the very year in which he should suffer death. His words 
are: “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy 


668 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pa 


holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and 
to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting right- 
eousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the 
Most Holy.” Dan. ix. 24. 

Agreeably to the unanimous opinion of the learned in Scripture 
prophecy, weeks are to be computed according to the Jewish mode of 
reckoning Sabbatic years, counting each week as a week of years. Hence, 
the “seventy weeks” of Daniel amount to just fow hundred and ninety 
years. . 
Dr. Clarke remarks that “most learned men agree that the death of 
Christ happened at the Passover, in the month Nisan, in the four thou- 
sand seven hundred and forty sixth year of the Julian period. Four 
hundred and ninety years, reckoned back from the above year, leads us di- 
rectly to the month Nisan in the four thousand two hundred and fifty-siath 
year of the same period—the very month and year in which Ezra had 
bis commission from Artaxerxes Longimanus, king of Persia (see Ezra 
vil. 9), to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.” 

Again, the PLACE in which the Messiah should be born had been 
named in prophecy. “But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be 
httle among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come 
firth unto me that is to be Ruler in Israel.” Mieah y. 2. 

Isaiah predicted the miraculous works of Messiah. “Then the eyes of 
the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf’ shall be unstopped. 
Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb 
sing.” Read the history of Jesus in the writings of the evangelists, and 
see how literal the fulfillment. 

Once more, in the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah there are found so 
many minute facts in reference to the character, life, and death, of 
Messiah, which are all so literally fulfilled in the history of Jesus that 
it is quite impossible to account for the wonderful coincidences, except 
upon the supposition that the prophecy was written after the erucifix- 
ion of Jesus, or that it was dictated by divine inspiration. That the 
former supposition cannot be true, we have already shown beyond the 
possibility of a reasonable doubt; and that the latter must be true, we 
are compelled to believe, or discard the dictates of common sense. 

But let us look at some of these minutely descriptive items. Messiah 
was to be manifested in a low and humble condition: “He hath no form 
nor comeliness, and no beauty that we should desire him.” He was to 
be treated with contempt: “He was despised and rejected of men . . . 
we esteemed him not.” He was to be a man of great grief and sorrow: 
“A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and we hid, as it were, our 


Jh. xvi.] PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSIAH. 669 


faces from him.” He was to suffer for others: “Surely he hath borne our 
griefs, and carried our sorrows. . . . He was wounded for our transgres- 
sions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace 

yas upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” He was to be 
meek and submissive amid his sufferings: “He is brought as a lamp to 
the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth 
not his mouth.” He was to be harmless and blameless in his life: “He 
had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.” He waz 
to be put to death under circumstances of ignominy: “He was numbered 
With the transgressors.” He was to be honored in his burial: He was 
“with the rich in his death.” He was to intercede for others: “He 
made intercession for the transgressors.” 

It is impossible for any one to read this life-like picture of the Mes- 
siah, and compare it with the history of Jesus as portrayed by the 
evangelists, without being impressed with the conviction that the one is 
the exact similitude of the other. No painter ever drew a picture 
more like the original than is this description of Isaiah like the reality 
we behold in the life and death of Jesus. As we read the prophet’s 
simple and pathetic statements, we can almost see the blessed Saviour 
as looking down upon Jerusalem he “ wept over it,” or as standing at 
the tomb of Lazarus he mingled his tears with those of Martha and 
Mary, or when he came near the final tragedy as he stood first before 
Caiaphas, then before Pilate, next before Herod, then again before 
Pilate, and lastly on the Mount of Crucifixion. In all the scenes here 
exhibited we see the exact pencilings of the prophet, only that the 
lines are more distinct and the colors more vivid. Who can contem- 
plate these glowing prophecies, and mark the exact accomplishment. in 
every particular, and fail to recognize the hand of God? Isaiah wrote 
nearly six hundred years before Jesus was born, yet he describes his 
character as though every scene in his history were then before his 
eyes. Is this the result of mere human foresight? Can it be the 
achievement of chance? And how can we account for the facet, that of 
all the thousands of the descendants of Abraham these predictions are 
ul fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, and in him alone? Surely he is the 
Messiah, and the Bible is true 

Numerous other minute circumstances concerning Messian were 
predicted in the Old Testament, a few of which we here mention. 
He was to be born of a virgin (Isa. vii. 14). He was to come in the 
spirit and power of Elijah (Malachi iii. 1, 4,5). He was to be a 
prophet (Deut. xvii. 15-18). He was to enter Jerusalem riding upon 
wm ass (Zech. 1x. 9). He was to be betrayed and sold for thirty piece 


670 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 2 


of silver (Zech. xi. 12). With his price the potter's field was to be bought 
(Zech. xi. 13). That vinegar and gall should be given him in his thirst, 
and lots cast for his vesture (Ps. xxii.18). That not « bone of him should 
be broken (Ps. xxxiv. 20). That his side should be pierced (Zech. xii. 10). 
That he should teach in parables (Ps. Ixxviii. 2). 

How remarkably and exactly all these predictions were fulfilled in 
Jesus, we need not show: the New Testament reader is familiar with 
the facts. How shall we account for these minute predictions, and 
their exact fulfillment? “There is no possible means of evading the 
evidence of the fulfillment of these predictions in the person of our 
Lord, unless it could be shown that Jesus and his disciples, by some 
kind of concert, made the events of his life and death to correspond 
with the prophecies, in order to substantiate his claim to the Messiahship. 
No infidel has ever been so absurd as to hazard this opinion, except Lord 
Bolingbroke ; and his observations may be taken as a most triumphant 
prool of the force of this evidence from prophecy, when an hypothesis so 
extravagant was resorted to by an acute mind in order to evade it. This 
noble writer asserts that Jesus Christ brought on his own death by a 
series of willful and preconcerted measures, merely to give his disciples 
the triumph of an appeal to the old prophecies. But this hypothesis 
does not reach the case; and to have succeeded, he ought to have shown 
that our Lord preconcerted his descent from David, his being born of a 
virgin, his birth at Bethlehem, and his wonderful endowments of elo- 
quence and wisdom ; that, by some means or other, he willfully made the 
Jews ungrateful to him, who healed their sick and cleansed their lepers ; 
and that he not only contrived his own death, but his resurrection and 
his ascension also, and the spread of his religion in opposition to human 
opinion and human power, in order to give his disciples the triumph of 
au appeal to the prophecies! These subterfuges of infidels concede the 
point, and show that the truth cannot be denied but by doing the ut- 
most violence to the understanding.” (Watson’s Institutes.) 

We close our remarks on the prophecies of the Old Testament in the 
language of Bishop Hurd: 

“1. That prophecy is of a prodigious eatent—that it commenced 
from the fall of man, and reaches to the consummation of all things ; 
that for many ages it was delivered darkly to few persons, and with 
large intervals from the date of one prophecy to that of another, but 
at length becaine more clear, more frequent, and was uniformly carried 
on in the line of one people, separated from the rest of the world, 
among other reasons assigned for this, principally to be the repository 
of tne divine oracles; that, with some intermission, the spirit of proph 


Ch xvi] PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSIAN. 671 


ecy subsisted among that people to the coming of Christ; that he him- 
self, and his apostles, exercised this power in the most conspicuous man- 
ner, and left behind them many predictions recorded in the books of 
the New Testament, which profess to respect very distant events, and 
even run out to the end of time, or, in St. John’s expression, to that 
period when the mystery of God shall be perfected (Rev. x. (D): 

“2. Farther, besides the extent of this prophetic scheme, the dignity 
of the person whom it concerns deserves our consideration. He is de 
scribed in terms which excite the most august and magnificent ideas. 
He is spoken of, indeed, sometimes as being the seed of the woman, aud 
as the Son of man, yet so as being at the same time of more than mor- 
tal extraction. He is even represented to us as being superior to men 
and angels—as far above all principality and power, above all that is 
accounted great, whether in heaven or in earth—as the word and wis- 
dom of God—as the eternal Son of the Father—as the heir of all 
things, by whom he made the world—as the brightness of his glory, and 
the express image of his person. We have no words to denote greater 
ideas than these: the mind of man cannot elevate itself to nobler con- 
ceptions. Of such transcendent worth and excellence is that Jesus said 
to be to whom all the prophets bear witness. 

“3. Lastly, the declared purpose for which the Messiah, prefigured 
by so long a train of prophecy, came into the world corresponds to all 
the rest of the representation. It was not to deliver an oppressed nation 
from civil tyranny, or to erect a great civil empire, that is to achieve 
one of those acts which history counts most heroic. No; it was not a 
mighty state, a victor people—Non res Romane perituraque regna’— 
that was worthy to enter into the contemplation of this divine person, 
It was another and far sublimer purpose which he came to accomplish 
—a purpose in comparison of which all our policies are poor and little, 
and all the performances of man as nothing. It was to deliver a world 
from ruin—to abolish sin and death—to purify and immortalize human 
nature; and thus, in the most exalted sense of the words, to be the 
Saviour of all men and the blessing of all nations. There is no exag- 
geration in this account. I deliver the undoubted sense, if not always 
the very words, of Scripture. Consider, then, to what. this repre- 
sentation amounts. Let us unite the several parts of it and bring them 
toa point. A spirit of prophecy pervading all time, characterizing one 
person of the highest dignity, and proclaiming the accomplishment of 
one purpose, the most beneficent, the most divine, that imagination 
itself can project. Such is the scriptural delineation, whether we will 
receive it or no, of that economy which we call prophetic,” 


672 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (hin Bs 


A brief reference to some of the predictions of our Saviour will close 
this chapter, and all we intend to present on the evidence of prophecy. 

Our blessed Saviour several times foretold to his disciples his own 
death, with several of the accompanying circumstances: that it should 
occur at Jerusalem—that the chief priests and scribes should arrest and 
arraign him, but deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked, scourged, 
and crucified—that Judas should betray him, Peter deny him, and all 
the disciples forsake him. 

Again, he very emphatically predicted his resurrection on the third 
day. 

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which was so abun- 
dantly established in a preceding chapter, is a very important fact in 
connection with the evidences of Christianity. It is a double testimony, 
either division of which, taken by itself, would be irresistibly conclusive 
on the question, but when both are taken together, assurance is rendered 
doubly sure. In the first place, the resurrection of Christ from the 
dead, had he never foretold it at all, furnishes the most indubitable evi- 
dence of the truth of his religion; in the second place, the fact that his 
resurrection had been plainly predicted by himself, and that it took 
place at the time and as he had predicted, demonstrates the divinity of 
his mission on the ground of the fulfillment of prophecy. Hence it is 
obvious that, in the resurrection of Christ from the dead, the truth of his 
religion is proved both by the fact of his resurrection, which is a miracle 
of power, and by the fulfillment of his prediction, which is a miracle of 
knowledge. 

He also predicted the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles in 
miraculous powers and gifts, and specified Jerusalem as the place at 
which this promise should be fulfilled. He farther specified the effect 
that should follow their possession of the miraculous powers thus con 
ferred—-that they should cast out devils, speak with new tongues, take 
up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it should not hurt them. 
The Acts of the Apostles furnishes abundant testimony of the complete 
accomplishment of all these predictions. 

Finally, Jesus Christ, in a very formal, solemn, and specific manner, 
foretold the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem. He 
specified that so complete should be this destruction, that “not one 
stone should be left upon another;” and that Jerusalem should be 
trodden under foot by the Gentiles, till the time of the Gentiles should 
he fulfilled ; and that this overthrow of the temple and city should take 
place before that generation should pass away. About forty years after 
this prediction was uttered the city was taken by the Romans, and the 


Ch. xvi. PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSIAH. C73 


temple razed to the ground. It has never been rebuilt. ‘The apostate 
Emperor Julian collected the Jews from all countries, and, under the 
conduct of his favorite Alypius, sent them to rebuild their temple. 
Thus aided and assisted by all the powerful appliances this mighty 
potentate could command, when stirred to energy by his malice against 
Christianity, they went forth resolved to rebuild the temple, and thus 
confront and defeat the predictions of Jesus; but, while inflated with 
the prospect of immediate success, they were suddenly seized with a 
panic, and driven in confusion from the place of their operations. It 
is testified by several historians—and, among them, by Ammianus Mar- 
cellinus, a pagan philosopher, and an intimate friend of Julian—that 
“horrible balls of fire, breaking out near the foundation with frequent 
and reiterated attacks, rendered the place from time to time inaccess- 
ible to the scorched and blasted workmen; and that the victorious ele- 
ment continuing in this manner, obstinately hent, as it were, to repel 
their attempts, the enterprise was abandoned.” 

Now we ask, What probability was there, at the time this destruction of 
Jerusalem was foretold, that any thing of the kind would so soon occur? 
The Jews were then a very feeble people, and it would seem exceedingly 
unreasonable to.expect that they would soon attempt a conflict with so 
mighty a power as the Empire of Rome. The Gospels recording these 
predictions were published in the land of Judea—that of St. Matthew 
at least twenty or thirty years before the events in question transpired, 
and the others a very few years afterward; and all of them several 
years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Antiquity testifies that all 
the apostles, except John, were dead before the Romans, under Titus, 
invaded Judea; and it so-happens that he is the only one of the evan- 
gelical authors who makes no mention of these events. 

These events were to be preceded by signs. False Christs were to 
arise; seditions, wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, and wonderful 
appearances in the heavens; persecutions and apostasies of the disci- 
ples, and wickedness of the people—these were to be precursors of the 
judgment on Jerusalem. The city and temple were not only to be 
totally destroyed, but many were to perish by the sword, and great 
numbers be carried into captivity, and the tribulation was to surpass 
any thing that had ever before been witnessed in the world; the 
Jewish Commonwealth was to be entirely overthrown, and the Jews 
themselves dispersed among all the nations of the earth; the Chris- 
tians, being warned by Christ to flee to the mountains, were thus to 
escape. 

It is a remarkable fact, that the principal historian who records the 

43 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. fl a. B. 2 


series of events which embody the fulfillment of these predictions, is 
Josephus, a learned Jew of the sacerdotal order. That he shoul? 
designedly have shaped his history to favor the Christian cause, is a 
supposition too absurd to be entertained. But his testimony is corrob- 
orated by that of Philo, another Jewish historian, as also by the writ- 
ings of Suetonius, Tacitus, and Seneca. 

The language of Josephus, in describing the calamities of these 
events, is the same in substance with that of the prediction. Christ 
says: “There shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the begin- 
ning of the world to this time; no, nor ever shall be.” Josephus says: 
*'The calamities of all people from the creation of the world, if they 
be compared with those suffered by the Jews, will be found to be far 
surpassed by them.” Titus, the Roman General, who, after seven 
months’ siege, took the city, after a survey of its immense fortifications, 
exclaims: “ By the help of God we have brought this war to a conclu- 
sion. It was God who drew out the Jews from these fortifications; for 
what could the hands or military engines of men avail against such 
towers as these?” 

That all these predictions of Christ concerning the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, with its accompanying circumstances and the events that were to 
follow, have been most specifically and certainly fulfilled up to the 
present period, cannot be questioned, unless we discredit the concurrent 
testimony of the most reputable Jewish and pagan historians of those 
times. 

Having thus concluded our glance at the evidence of Christianity 
from prophecy, omitting entirely many predictions which might have 
been cited, and taking a much more cursory view of most of those we 
have noticed than the subjects might seem to demand, yet we are fully 
persuaded that the evidence we have presented is sufficient to carry the 
conviction to every candid mind, that the Bible is in truth the word of 
God. 

Few, if any, of the objections of infidels to the evidence from proph- 
ecy are at all applicable to those predictions which we have had under 
review. If this statement be correct—which, we think, will be gene 
rally admitted—then it will follow that, admitting the validity of those 
objections (which we are far from doing) in reference to those prophe 
cies to which they may be thought to be applicable, yet they cannot 
weaken the force of the evidence derived from the passages we have 
adduced. It cannot be claimed, in reference to any of these predic 
tions, that they were written after the events; it cannot be alleged that, 
like the heathen oracles, they were delivered in general, vague, or am 


Ch, xvi.] PROPHECIES IN RELATION TO MESSIAH. O75 


biguous terms; it cannot be maintained that any of them have failed 
in the fulfillment; nor can it be said that any of them are frivolous or 
fanatical in their nature. On the contrary, it is as clear as evidence 
can render any truth of the kind, that they were all written before (and 
many of them thousands of years before) the events ; that they were ex- 
pressed in language minute, definite, and perspicuous; that they have 
been fulfilled with remarkable exactitude; and that they refer to events 
of the most serious and important nature—in a word, they are predic- 
tions, in their character and circumstances, worthy of God, from whom 
they emanated, and most clearly demonstrative of the divine legation 
of those who delivered them, and of the truth and inspiration of the 
Holy Scriptures. Let the sinner. examine and weigh them well, and 
receive, believe, and obey the truth, and gain eternal life; or reject, 
deride, and rebel, and perish everlastingly ! 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVI. 


Question 1. What evidence do the Jews| 6. What is the proof from the propn 


furnish that the prophecies concern- ecy of Daniel’s “seventy weeks”? 
ing Messiah have not been interpo-| 7. What prophet foretold the place of 
lated since his advent? Christ's birth? 
2. By what evidence is it proved that| 8. What prophet foretold his miracles 
they could not have been corrupted and sufferings? 
for centuries before? 9. What other minute circumstances 
3. How may the evidence from proph- were foretold concerning him? 
ecy be viewed in its application? | 10. In what sense were his predic- 
4. What number of plain predictions tions of his death a double mir- 
concerning Messiah are found in acle? 
the Old Testament? 1i. How is it proved that his prediction 
5. What are some of these predictions, of the destruction of Jerusalem 


of w specific character? was fulfilled ? 


676 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. P ii. B. 2 


CHAPTER XVII. 


THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 


THE argument in favor of revelation founded on the success of Chris- 
tianity, by some authors, has been embraced under the general division 
of external evidences; and by others, under what they term, collateral 
evidences. But as, in our arrangement, the collateral division is en- 
tirely omitted, and the whole included within the two generai divisions 
of external and internal, we think the evidence founded on the success 
of Christianity more naturally falls under the head of the evternal evi- 
dences. We think this kind of testimony is as properly embraced un- 
der the division to which we have assigned it as is that arising from 
miracles or prophecy. Indeed, the evidence from the success of the 
gospel is so closely allied to both that which is founded upon miracles 
and that which is founded upon prophecy, that some authors have con- 
sidered it under the one head, and some under the other. But this will 
be more manifest as we proceed to analyze the argument now to be dis- 
cussed. 

The truth of Christianity may be established, from the great success 
which attended the first promulgation of the gospel, in two ways: First, 
this success had been abundantly predicted not only by the Old Testa- 
ment prophets, but also by our Saviour himself; hence the fulfillment 
of this prediction amounts to a prophetic argument in favor of Chris- 
tianity, independent of any divine interposition by which that success 
may have been produced. Secondly, the means by which this success 
was effected were entirely inadequate to produce it, without divine inter- 
position ; hence the realization of the success, under the circumstances, 
is evidence that it was effected by divine interposition, and, conse- 
quently, this amounts to miraculous testimony in favor of Christianity. 
It follows, therefore, that if the several parts of this argument, as just 
presented, be satisfactorily sustained, it will afford us a moral demon- 
stration, both prophetic and miraculous, that Christianity is true, 

The first elementary part of the argument, as just stated, requires 
us to show that this great success of Christianity had been foretold by 


@). xvii] THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 677 


prophecy. That such was the fact, no reader of the Bible can dispute. 
In the predictions of those prophets and righteous men, who spoke of 
the coming Messiah, they dealt extensively, and with rapture, upon the 
victorious conquests and prosperity of his kingdom. They portrayed 
his triumphs in the following strain: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee 
the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth 
for thy possession.” “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, 
and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” “ For the earth shall 
be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” “The 
wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them, and the desert 
shall rejoice and blossom as the rose.” “And the glory of the Lord 
shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.” “ Behold, T will 
lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people; 
and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be 
carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, 
and their queens thy nursing mothers.” “For the Lord hath made 
bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of 
the earth shall see the salvation of our God.” “The abundance of' the 
sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come 
unto thee.” “And it shall come to pass afterward that I will pour out 
my Spirit upon all flesh.” 

That these predictions refer to Messiah’s reign, even the bigoted Jew 
cannot deny. And what language could depict in colors more vivid 
the conquests of his kingdom? 

Our Saviour’s own predictions on the subject are equally explicit. 
He said to his apostles: “That repentance and remission of sing should 
be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” 
And again: “This gospel of the kingdom shall first be preached to all 
the world for a witness to all nations, and then shall the end come.” 

From all these Scriptures, it is very manifest that th great. success 
of Christianity had been foretold in prophecy; and thus the first ele- 
ment of our argument is sustained. 

The next question before us is this: Did Christianity, in the first ages 
of its promulgation, meet with a remarkable degree of success? On 
this question, our first authority is the Acts of the Apostles. Here we 
learn that at the opening of the gospel dispensation at Pentecost three 
thousand souls, in one day, were converted and added to the Church ; 
and, a few days afterward, about two thousand were converted in one 
day. And the book of the apostolic Acts is but one continuous record 
of the labors, the persecutions, and abundant successes of the apostles. 
It appears from this sacred record alone that in # few years many thou- 


678 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 2 


sands, and some from all classes of society, were converted through the 
labors of the apostles—not only in Jerusalem and throughout Judea, 
but at Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, and almost all 
parts of the Roman Empire. 

Our next testimony as to the great success of the gospel, in that 
early period of its history, is derived from the Christian writers of that 
day. ; 

Justin Martyr, a learned divine of the second century, published, 
about the year 146, a work called “A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew,” 
in which he uses these words: “There is no nation, whether of barbarians 
or Greeks, whether they live in wagons or tents, amongst whom prayers 
ure not made to the Father and Creator of all through the name of the 
crucified Jesus,” 

Tertullian, who flourished about the close of the second centu ry, writes 
thus: “In whom but the Christ now come have all nations believed ? 
for in whom do all other nations (but yours, the Jews) confide? Parth- 
ians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, Armenia, 
Phrygia, Cappadocia, and the inhabitants of Pontus, Asia, and Pam- 
phylia, the dwellers in Egypt, and the inhabitants of Africa beyond 
Cyrene, Romans and strangers, and in Jerusalem, both Jews and prose- 
lytes; so that the various tribes of the Getuli and the numerous hordes 
of the Mauri, all the Spanish clans and different nations of Gauls, and 
the provinces of the Britons (inaccessible to the Romans, but subdued 
by Christ), and of the Samaritans, and Dacians, and Germans, and 
Scythians, and many unexplored nations, and countries, and islands 
unknown to us, and which we cannot enumerate—in all which places 
the name of the Curist who has come now reigns, for who could reign 
over all these but Christ the Son of God?” 

The same author, in a letter to the Proconsul of Africa, in which 
province Tertullian himself also resided, speaks as follows: “If we 
Christians were disposed to array ourselves as open or secret enemies 
of our opposers, a sufficient force of numbers is not wanting to us. 
Many of the Moors and Marcomanmni, as well as other tribes more re- 
mote, even to the very ends of the earth and throughout the world, are 
with us. We are but of yesterday, and yet we have filled all your 
places—your cities, your islands, your castles, your towns, your council- 
houses, your very camps, your tribes, your palace, your senate, your 
forum. We have left you nothing but your temples. If we should 
break away from you, and should remove into some other country, the 
mere loss of so many citizens would overwhelm your government; and 
would itself be an effectual punishment. Doubtless you would be 


Uh, xvii.} THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 679 


frightened at your own solitude. The silence and stupor which you 
would witness would cause the world over which you reign tu appear as 
dead. Your enemies would then be more than your citizens who 
should remain.” 

Undonbted as this testimony of the early Christian Fathers must be 
considered, since their apologies were public papers addressed to the 
emperors and magistrates of the Roman Government; yet, as the mere 
fact that they were Christians may excite suspicion against the truthful- 
ness of their statements, we will now adduce the testimony of pagan 
historians to the same effect. 

The celebrated Roman historian, Tacitus, lived contemporary with 
the apostles, in the first century, and none have questioned his integrity 
as a chronicler of the events of his day. In giving an account of the 
great fire which reduced to ashes the city of Rome, he says: “But nei- 
ther by human aid nor by the costly largesses by which he attempted 
to propitiate the gods was the prince able to remove from himself. the 
infamy which had attached to him in the opinion of all for having or- 
dered the conflagration. To suppress this rumor, therefore, Nero 
caused others to be accused, on whom he inflicted exquisite torments, 
who were already hated by the people for their crimes, and were vul- 
garly denominated Curistrans. This name they derived from Curist, 
their leader, who, in the reign of Tiberias, was put to death as a crimi- 
nal while Pontius Pilate was procurator. This destructive superstition, 
repressed for a while, again broke out, and spread not only through 
Judea, where it originated, but reached this city also, into which flow 
all things that are vile and abominable, and where they are en- 
couraged. At first they only were seized who confessed that they be- 
longed to this sect, and afterward a vast multitude by the information 
of those who were condemned not so much for the crime of burning 
the city as for hatred of the human race. These, clothed in the skins 
of wild beasts, were exposed to derision, and were either torn to pieces 
by dogs or were affixed to crosses; or, when the daylight was passed, 
were set on fire that they might serve instead of lamps for the night.” 

The reputation of Suetonius, another Roman historian, is also well 
established. He speaks as follows: “He (Claudius) banished the 
Jews from Rome, who were continually raising disturbances, Christ 
(Chrestus) being their leader.” In the Life of Nero, the same author 
says, “The Cuseuane were Papin a sort of men of a new and 
magical] religion.” 

Pliny the younger was also a Barta writer, renowned for his intel- 
ligence and veracity. This learned philosopher, in the beginring of 


680 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B.2 


the second century, wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan, containing 
the most satisfactory testimony to the point in hand. He speaks as 
follows: “ Pliny to the Emperor Trajan wisheth health,” ete. “It is my 
custom, sir, to refer all things to you of which I entertain any doubt; 
for who can better direct me in my hesitation or instruct my igno- 
rance? I was never before present at any of the trials of the Chris- 
tians, so that I am ignorant both of the matter to be inquired into and 
of the nature of the punishment which should be inflicted, and to what 
length the investigation is to be extended. I have, moreover, been in 
great uncertainty whether any difference ought to be made on account 
ot age, between the young and tender and the robust; and, also, whether 
any place should be allowed for repentance and pardon, or whether 
those who have once been Christians should be punished, although they 
have now ceased to be such, and whether punishment should be in- 
flicted merely on account of the name where no crimes are charged, or 
whether crimes connected with the name are the proper objects of pun- 
ishment. This, however, is the method which I have pursued in regard 
to those who were brought before me as Christians. I interrogated 
them whether they were Christians; and, upon their confessing that 
they were, I put the question to them a second and a third time, threat- 
ening them with capital punishment; and when they persisted in their 
confession, I ordered them to be led away to execution—for, whatever 
might be the nature of their crime, I could not doubt that perverseness 
and inflexible obstinacy deserve to be punished. There were others, 
addicted to the same insanity, whom, because they were Roman citi- 
zens, I have noted down to be sent to the city. In a short space, the 
crime diffusing itself, as is common, a great variety of cases have fallen 
under my cognizance. An anonymous libel was exhibited to me, con- 
taining the names of many persons who denied that they were Chris- 
tians or ever had been, and, as an evidence of their sincerity, they 
Joined me in an address to the gods, and to your image which I had 
ordered to be brought along with the images of the gods for this very 
purpose. Moreover, they sacrificed with wine and frankincense, and 
blasphemed the name of Christ, none of which things can those who 
are really Christians be constrained to do; therefore, I judged it 
proper to dismiss them, Others, named by the informer, at first con- 
fessed themselves to be Christians, and afterward denied it; and some 
asserted that, although they had been Christians, they had ceased to 
be such for more than three years, and some as much as twenty years. 
All these worshiped your image and the statues of the gods, and exe- 
erated Christ. But they affirmed that this was the sum of their fault 


Ch. xvii } THE SUCCESS GF CHRISTIANITY. 681 


or error: that they were accustomed, on a stated day, to meet together 
before day, to sing a hymn to Christ in concert, as to a god, and tc 
bind themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wickedness, but, 
on the contrary, to abstain from theft, robbery, and adultery ; also, 
never to violate their promise nor deny a pledge committed to them. 
These things being performed, it was their custom to separate, anc to 
meet again at a promiscuous, innocent meal, which, however, tiey had 
omitted from the time of the publication of my edict, by which, accord- 
ing to your orders, I forbade assemblies of this sort. On receiving this 
account, I judged it to be more necessary to examine by torture two 
females who were called deaconesses; but I discovered nothing except 
a depraved and immoderate superstition. Whereupon, suspending far- 
ther judicial proceedings, I have recourse to you for advice; for it has 
appeared to me that the subject is highly deserving of consideration, 
especially on account of the great number of persons whose lives are 
put into jeopardy. Many persons of all ages, sexes, and conditions 
are accused, and many more will be in the same situation; for the con- 
tagion of this superstition has not merely pervaded the cities, but also 
all villages and country places, yet it seems to me that it might be re- 
strained and corrected. It is a matter of fact, that the temples which 
were almost deserted begin again to be frequented, and the sacred so- 
lemnities which had been long intermitted are again attended; and 
victims for the altars are now readily sold, which awhile ago were al- 
most without purchasers. Whence it is easy to conjecture what a mul- 
titude of men might be reclaimed, if only the door to repentance was 
left open.” 

The Emperor’s reply to this letter was as follows: “Trajan to Pliny: 
Health and happiness. You have taken the right method, my Pliny, 
in dealing with those who have been brought before you as Christians ; 
for it is impossible to establish any universal rule which will apply to 
all cases. They should not be sought after; but, when they are brought 
before you and convicted, they must be punished. Nevertheless, if any 
one deny that he is a Christian, and confirm his assertion by his con- 
duct—that is, by worshiping our gods—although he may be suspected 
of having been one in time past, let him obtain pardon on repentance. 
But in no case permit a libel against any one to be received, unless it 
be signed by the person who presents it, for that would be a dangerous 
precedent, and in nowise suitable to the present age.” a 

Much additional testimony to the same import, both from Christian 
and pagan writers, might be adduced; but we deem it superflucus to 
add any thing farther, except to refer to the well-known and important 


682 ELEMENTS 9F DIVINITY. [P. its BES. 


fact that such had been the extent to which the Christian religion had 
spread and triumphed, that as early as the commencement of the fourth 
century, which was little over two hundred years from the death of 
the last of the apostles, it became the established religion of the vast 
Roman Empire. This mighty revolution was effected by Constantine 
the Great on his ascending the imperial throne. Whether he had be- 
come a real convert to Christianity, or whether he merely adopted it as 
the religion of the empire through political motives, matters nothing so 
far as the question before us is concerned. If he was a real convert, it shows 
the position and influence to whieh Christianity must have attained to ar- 
rest the attention and gain the approval of so illustrious a personage ; 
and, moreover, to induce him to proclaim 7 as the religion of the state. 
But if he was influenced in the case solely by considerations of states- 
manship, then we have the best of proof that Christianity at that early 
period of its history had gained the ascendency over paganism, and 
become the most influential religion of the empire. From what. has 
been presented, it cannot be denied that the success of Christianity, 
from its first promulgation till it had overspread the Roman Empire, 
was astonishingly great, furnishing in the fact an evident fulfillment of 
the predictions of the prophets and of Christ on the subject. 

According to the statement of our argument, the next question to be 
considered is this: Were the means used in producing this success ade- 
quate to effect it without the aid of divine interposition? In order to 
a proper understanding of this subject, there are two points to be par- 
ticularly considered: First, the feebleness of the human instrument- 
alities to be employed in the work ; secondly, the magnitude of the dif: 
ficulties in the way of its accomplishment. 

If it appears that the means are not so feeble, nor the interposing 
difficulties so great, but that Christianity might have secured the suc- 
cess with which it was crowned, without the aid of diyine interposition, 
then our argument, so far as grounded upon the fact that a miracle of 
power was performed in effecting this success, must be set aside; but 
that would not weaken the argument, so far as it is based on the fulfill- 
ment of prophecy, or on the performance of a. miracle of knowledge. 
On the contrary, should it appear that the means or instrumentalities 
udmitted in the case are inadequate to the contemplated success without 
divine interposition, then it will follow that our argument is sustained 
in both its branches, and these branches will mutually strengthen each 
other. 

But we now proceed to contemplate the human instrumentalities set 
apart and employed for the establishment and spread of the gospel. 


Uh. xvii.J THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 68s 


What were these? We see no conclave of far-seeing politicians on 
wise philosophers uniting their councils to mature and digest a plan to 
uproot all the deepest prejudices of nations, and to revolutionize the 
religion of the world—no array of eloquent orators going forth from 
the schools to entrance and overwhelm, with the “ wisdom of words,” 
all the nations of the earth, and win them to a new religion —no 
mighty armies and navies waiting the bidding of an ambitious poten- 
tate to go forth in battle to overthrow the kingdoms and empires of the 
world! None of these instrumentalities were employed by Him who 
said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” 

But what do we behold? According to the showing of infidelity, only 
a few obscure, illiterate, humble peasants— fishermen, tent-makers, or 
tax-gatherers—without science or éloquence, without wealth or power, 
without popularity or influence, or armies or navies, or sword. or 
scrip, going forth to battle against prejudice, and power, and elo- 
quence, and learning—against kings and priests—against philosophy 
and superstition — against the bigotry of the Jew and the idolatry 
of the pagan—against the deadly hate and malice of all. And _ for 
what? Let infidelity answer, and it will tell you, to uphold and 
promote the cause of an impostor—an impostor who had deceived 
and deluded them for years, and who at last had been executed in 
disgrace; and, to crown all, according to infidelity, one whom they 
knew to be such! Now we ask, according to all the laws by which men 
and minds are governed—according to the philosophy of human nature 
—Is it not morally impossible, unless upon the hypothesis that the 
apostles were insane, that they should ever have attempted the promul- 
gation of the gospel in the name of Jesus, much less that they should 
have gained signal success in the enterprise, unless they had been 
assured, not only of his divinity and resurrection, but also of his mirac- 
ulous assistance in their work? 

But, admitting that they were sufticiently demented to have made 
the attempt, would they have selected Jerusalem as the theater of their 
commencement—that very city in which their Master, only a few weeks 
previously, had been crucified as a malefactor—in the midst of that 
very community who were so familiar with all his deceptions, if such 
they were—who had it in their power to expose all the false statements 
of his disciples concerning his resurrection, if he had not arisen; and, 
above all, who were so deeply enraged against him and his followers— 
under all these circumstances, would they have selected Jerusalem as 
the place of their first operations? And how can we account for theiz 
instant and abundant success? 


584 ELEMENTS 9F DIVINITY. [PotRae 


Admit the truth of Christianity, and all is plain-—deny it, and all is 
inexplicable They were assured of’ the divinity and resurrection of 
Jesus; they confided in his promise, that they should be “endued with 
power from on high,” and waited for its fulfillment. The Holy Ghost 
came: they spake with tongues they had never learned, and were able 
to say to all who doubted the divinity of their mission or the resurree- 
tion of their Master, “Bring forth your deaf, your blind, your lame, 
your sick, and, in the name of Jesus, we will heal them; bring forth 
your dead, and, in his name, we will raise them to life again!” But 
for the “power from on high” with which the apostles were endued, 
they never could have established a Church in Jerusalem, or anywhere 
else—but for this, they never could haye encountered the powerful oppo- 
sition, both from Jews and pagans, by which they were withstood, or, 
having encountered it, according to all human calculation they would 
have been instantly overwhelmed and crushed beneath its weight. They 
“preached Jesus and the resurrection” with success, because he who 
had said, “Lo, Iam with you alway,” ever accompanied them, “ bear- 
ing them witness both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, 
and gifts of the Holy Ghost.” 

The circumstances of the age and countries in which Christianity 
was first presented, rendered success in the enterprise, by means and 
instrumentalities so feeble and insignificant, a moral impossibility, ex- 
cept upon the supposition that the apostles received “hel p from God,” 
Had Christianity originated during the dark ages, When learning and 
science were almost forgotten or unknown, and the whole world was 
shrouded in ignorance, it might be pleaded that designing men had 
practiced deception upon the benighted multitudes, and led them 
blindly to embrace a delusion; but, as if it were designed by Provi- 
dence that this plea of infidelity should be forever forestalled, Chris- 
tianity arose and established its claims in the most enlightened period 
of the world’s history. Jesus Christ appeared in the Augustan age, so 
justly celebrated for the general diffusion of intelligence and the pros- 
perous condition of philosophy, science, and learning, The world had 
never before been so well prepared for the critical examination of the 
claims of a new religion, or the ready detection of the false pretensions 
and cunningly-devised frauds of an impostor. 

Another circumstance rendering that age a peculiarly favorable june- 
ture, either for the establishment of the claims of a true religion or for 
the detection and exposure of an imposture, is the fact that the Roman 
Empire had then gained the height of its greatness, and had overspread 
by its influence the enlightened world, rendering tributary to its domin- 


oh. xvii.j THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 685 


ion nearly every civilized nation upon the globe. This circumstance, 
added to the fact that it was a time of universal peace, rendered that 
the period of all others the most auspicious for the promulgation and 
success of a true religion, but the most inauspicious for the suceess of a 
jraud. Philosophers and men of learning abounded almost every- 
where in the cities and large towns; their means of mutual communi- 
cation and intercourse were easy and abundant; they had leisure for 
study and patient examination; and there was no great political revo- 
lution or exciting war in progress to distract the mind or interrupt the 
process of investigation, At such a time, and under such cirecum- 
stances, are those poor fishermen of Galilee capable of palming a 
gross deception upon the world, and, in a few years, revolutionizing its 
religion ? 

Bat let us look at the places selected for their operations. They did 
not wander to some remote and obscure corner of the empire—distant 
from Jerusalem, the scene of the ministry and miracles of Jesus and 
the center of Jewish learning and influence, and far away from Rome, 
the seat of empire and power—but they lifted the standard right at 
Jerusalem, where, in a few months, they had many thousands of con- 
verts. At Rome, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Damascus, Antioch, Phil- 
ippi, and throughout all the towns and cities in their reach, they stood 
forth preaching the gospel with great success. Wherever Jewish preju- 
dice was the most inveterate, or Jewish malice the most vindictive, 
there they hasted to unfurl the banner of the cross, and there they 
founded flourishing Churches; wherever among the pagans was fourd 
the center of philosophy or the stronghold of idolatry, there they 
proceeded at once, boldly proclaiming salvation in the name of the 
crucified One, and calling upon all to abandon the worship of “dumb 
idols.” 

But who were their opponents in this conflict? All parties, and sects, 
and orders, among the Jews. The Essenes, the Herodians, the Phari- 
sees, the Sadducees, the scribes and the priests, the rulers and the elders, 
the members of the Sanhedrim, and the doctors of the law, all stood up 
as the hitter enemies and persecutors of the despicable “sect of the 
Nazarenes ;” but among all these the apostles gained converts, and 
founded Churches in their nidst. 

Among the Gentiles they were met and opposed by emperors, kings, 
proconsuls, governors, magistrates, and all in authority; by Platonists, 
Peripatetics, Epicureans, and all the philosophical sects; by the rulera 
of state, and the priests of religion—in a word, by the learning and 
eloquence, power and prejudice, pride and malice, of the whole world 


686 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 


Christians vere ridiculed, slandered, reviled, hated, persecuted, impris- 
oned, scourzed, beheaded, drowned. thrown to’ wild heasts, crucified, 
burned, and “killed all the day long;” yet the Church spread and 
prospered more and more, and thus “mightily grew the word of God 
and prevailed.” 

The inducements held forth by Jesus and his apostles to enlist disci- 
ples, were not such as were calculated to promote success upon mere 
natural principles. Neither riches, nor honors, nor pleasures, were 
promised his followers, but toil and poverty, tribulation and ignominy, 
persecution and death—these were the earthly rewards of Him who 
said, “ Whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be 
my disciple.” Are such terms of discipleship as these the marks of 
imposture? Did human wisdom ever suggest a scheme like this to win 
the support of men? What could induce a designing deceiver to pro- 
pose such terms? In the absence of heroic daring, resulting from a 
firm conviction of the truth and an abiding confidence in the divine 
nid, how could sane men have hoped for success when exhibiting such 
terms as these? Supernatural interposition apart, what could be ima- 
gined better calculated to prevent success than this initiating maxim of 
Jesus: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take 
up his cross, and follow me?” 

Lovk also at the general tenor of the precepts and promises of Chris 
tianity. In this religion, “the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, 
and the pride of life,’ must be forsaken, the sinful propensities of un- 
sanctified humanity renounced, and a life of holiness pursued. Is this 
the device of an impostor? To win adherents to his cause, would he 
prescribe sacrifices at the very threshold which only can be made by 
the exercise of the loftiest species of moral heroism of which our nature 
is capable? To pluck out the right eye, to cut off the right hand— 
shese are precepts which no impostor could have invented or would have 
enjoined. They fully attest the divinity of the gospel, and clearly 
demonstrate the impossibility of its success, except through the influ- 
ence of a principle of heavenly origin, conferred by divine interposition, 
changing the current of the heart and transforming the texture of the life, 

And what were the promises of this religion in connection with the 
ife to come? Were they calculated to win the approval and secure 
the devotion of man’s corrupt and sensual nature? Taking the moral 
nature of man as we know from experience and observation that it 
really is, its whole current is in direct antagonism to the purity and 
holiness of the gospel, as enjoined in this life, and to its unearthly and 
spiritual rewards, as promised in the life to come. It tells of no fountains 


Oh. xvii.] THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY. 687 


of worldly honors, or riches, or pleasures, in reference to this world, and 
gives no promise of Elysian fields of sensual delight in reference to the 
world to come. We conclude, therefore, that the terms of discipleship 
and the moral precepts and heavenly promises of the gospel are all of 
such a nature as to preclude the possibility of success but upor the 
supposition that divine interposition is afforded. 

Infidelity, staggering under the weight of the argument for the trath 
of Christianity derived from its success, has attempted to account for 
this success on natural principles alone. The author of “The Decline 
and Fall of the Roman Empire” has exhibited, as adequate to this 
purpose, the following “secondary causes”: 1. “The inflexible and intol- 
erant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, 
but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of 
inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses.” 
2. “The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circum- 
stance which could give weight and efficiency to that important truth.” 
3. “The miraculous powers of the primitive Church.” 4, “The virtues 
of the primitive Christians.’ 5, “The union and discipline of the 
Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increas- 
ing state in the heart of the Roman Empire.” 

Referring those who wish to see a full and complete answer to Mr, 
Gibbon’s chapter on this subject to the treatises by Bishop Watson and 
Lord Hailes in reply to Gibbon, we here append a remark or two in 
reference to each of these five “secondary causes:” 

1. As to the “zeal of the Christians,” so far as it was a pure and holy 
principle consistent with the genius of Christianity, it is acknowledged 
to have been a very powerful cause in securing the success of Christian- 
ity. But then i was not “derived from the Jewish religion,” but from 
a firm conviction of the truth and importance of Christianity, resulting 
from the most satisfactory evidence of the divine interposition in its 
establishment. But if a bigoted intolerance, inconsistent with the mild 
precepts of the gospel, be charged upon the Christians, that would have 
been more likely to prevent than to promote success. 

In reference to the second cause—* the doctrine of a future life”— 
this, it is true, was an element of apostolic success; but then it was 
founded on the attested fact of the resurrection of Jesus and the re- 
peated miraculous assurances of the Holy Spirit, and, of course, cannot 
be considered a mere natural or secondary cause. 

As to Mr. Gibbon’s third cause—‘ the miraculous powers of the 
primitive Church”—these miracles must have been either rea or spu- 
rious. If real, they were a mighty engine of success; but then the 


683 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B.& 


divine interposition is confessed, and the point in dispute given up. But 
if these miracles were mere pretensions and frauds, then they could not 
have promoted success, but would have resulted in detection, exposure, 
and defeat. 

Mr. Gibbon’s fourth cause—* the virtues of the primitive Christians” 
—tne whole world must admit to have been very efficacious in effecting 
the great success of Christianity ; but it is truly astonishing that a mind 
like tnat of Mr. Gibbon could conceive of those divinely-imparted vir- 
tues as a mere natural or secondary cause! Those sublime virtues 
could only have resulted from the truth, excellency, and divine authen 
tication of the doctrines of Christianity. 

The fifth cause is, “The union and discipline of the Vhristian repub- 
lic.” ere we see an exhibition of the fact that great. minds are often 
shorn of their svrength when they assault the claims of divine revela- 
tion. Mr. Gibbon is to account for the rapid growth of the Christian 
Church during the first and second centuries, and he does so by attrib- 
uting it to that ‘union and discipline” which, according to his own 
showing. were for three centuries gradually forming the Church into a 
state! Mow can that “formation,” which was gradually completed in 
the third century, produce the success of Christianity in the first and 
second centuries ? 

In conclusion, it may be proper for us to refer to the fact, that infi- 
delity has attempted to neutralize the force of the Christian argument, 
founded on the success of the gospel, by appealing to the fact that 
Mohammed had great success in the establishment of a false religion ; 
hence it is argued that the success of Christianity can be no evidence 
of its truth. The truth of Christianity is argued from its success, on 
the ground that there were certain circumstances connected with its 
origin and establishment which would have rendered its success a moral 
impossibility unless it had been true. Now it is clear that the success 
of Mohammedanism can only bear against the Christian argument 
here predicated, provided it was accom panied by similar eireumstances, 
It is very plain that the circumstances connected with the establish 
ment of the two religions were quite dissimilar in character. Moham- 
med claimed to perform no miracles—Jesus Christ performed many, 
of the most obvious character, and in the most public manner. - Had 
Mohammed undertaken as many of the same character, under circum: 
stances of similar publicity, it is impossible that he could have suc- 
ceeded, even with the ignorant Arabs; but Jesus Christ confounded 
the combined wisdom of Jews and Gentiles, Mohammed aecommo- 
dated his precepts to the wicked and sensual propensities of an ungodly 


Uh xvii THE SUCCESS OF CHRISTIANITY, 6389 


world, both as regards this life and the next; the teachings cf Jesus 
Christ proclaimed a deadly warfare against all manner of sinful lux- 
ury, sensuality, lust, uncleanness, and abomination, promising no re- 
ward of sensual indulgence in the future. Mohammed made but tri- 
fling progress till he seized the sword as his instrument of propagandism, 
und mustered a large army of fierce warriors, presenting to his con- 
quered foes the alternative of conversion or death; Jesus Chris! a 

nounced to his disciples: “ My kingdom is not of this world.” - “ Pro 
vide neither sword nor serip.” “They that take the sword, shall perisl 
with the sword.” 

The simple proclamation of the facts and doctrines of the gospel, in 
the spirit of meekness and love, was the means selected by the Saviour 
for the propagation of his religion. We might notice several othe 
important points of contrast between the circumstances connected with 
the establishment of these two religions, but more would be superfluous. 
The causes of the success of the religion of the false prophet can only 
be contrasted—not compared—with those which produced the success 
of Christianity. The causes in the one case were “earthly, sensual, and 
devilish ;” in the other case they were “pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to 
be entreated, and full of mercy and good fruits.” While Mohammed’s 
success proves his religion to be of this earth, that of Christianity 
demonstrates the divinity of its origin. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVII. 


QUESTION 1. In what two ways may the aid, and what evidence bears satis- 
truth of Christianity be proved from factorily upon the subject ? 
its success ? 9, How is the strength of the oppcsi- 

2. What scriptures show that this suc- tion to Christianity shown ? 
cess had been predicted ? 10. What were the inducements held 

3. What is our first source of argument forth by Jesus and his apostles to 
to prove this success? enlist disciples? 

4. What is the next testimony on the} 11. What the character of the precepte 
subject ? and promises of Christianity ? 

5. What quotations are made from Chris- | 12. How does Gibbon attempt te ac- 
tian writers? count for the success of Christian. 

6. What from profane writers? ity on natural principles? 

7. When did Christianity become the | 13. How is the fallacy of his argurneat 
religion of the Roman Empire? shown? 

8. What two points are to be considered | 14. How is the success of Christiamiy 
to show that this success could not contrasted with that of Moham- 
have been secured but by divine medanism ? 


44 


PART f1.—EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, 


BOOK II1.—DIRECT EVIDENCE—INTERN AL, 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


HARMONY OF THE DISPENSATIONS— GENERAL CONSISTENCY OF Hk 
BIBLE—ITS ANALOGY WITH NATURE. 


Unper the division of Internal Evidences of Christianity, according 
to our definitions, we include “all that evidence which is derived from 
the nature of the doctrines, the consistency and character of the writers, 
ant the effects of Christianity. Or more at large—under this division, 
we embrace the evidence derived from the consistency of the different 
parts of the Bible, the excellency of its doctrines; their accordance with 
human nature, their transforming influence upon the heart and life; and 
the internal assurance of their truth, which they, through the Spirit, im- 
part to all who believe and obey them.” 

In strictness of speech, none of the evidences of Christianity are 
either wholly external or wholly internal; for whether we speak of 
miracles which are always classed with the external evidences, or of 
dcetrines which are always considered internal evidences, we are com- 
pelled to bring the materials of our argument partly from within and 
partly from without the Scriptures. Thus we find the miracles recorded 
within the Bible, and the evidence substantiating them, is derived 
partly from the B:ble and partly from other sources; but as miracles do 
not properly enter into the subject-matter of the revelation, but merely 
serve as outside testimony, confirming what is revealed, they are con- 
sidered external evidences; and although we find the doctrines of reve- 
lation recorded in the Scriptures, yet, to exhibit our argument deduced 
from them, we are compelled to appeal to various facts and data, derived 

(691) 


6Y2 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 3 


from Cousciousiiess, experience, observation, and various other €2:-3Cr ip 
tural sources; but as the argument is grounded upon the doctrines 
revealed in the Scriptures, this argument is considered internal, 

The standard Christian authors differ greatly as to the relative im- 
portance of the external and internal evidences of Christianity. Dr. $ 
Clarke, Erskine, Soame Jenyns, and others, give to the internal evi- 
dences the first importance, and would make the external evideuce 
stand in abeyance till the internal has been examined, and has clearec. 
the way for the external. Other authors of equal eminence and ability 
place the external evidence foremost, both in order and lm portance. 
In this class of writers we find Chapman, Richard Watson, Alexan- 
der, and many others. On this question, Chapman speaks as follows: 

“Were a teacher sent from heaven, with signs and wonders, to a na- 
tion of idolaters, and they previously instructed to regard no miracles 
of his whatsoever, till they were fully satisfied of the goodness of his 
doctrines, it is easy to foresee by what rule they would prove his doc- 
trine, and what success he would meet with amongst them. Add to 
this, what is likewise exceedingly material, the great delays and _per- 
plexities attending this way of proceeding. For if every article of doc- 
trine must be discussed and scanned by every person to whom it is 
offered, what slow advances would be made by a divine revelation 
among such a people! Hundreds would probably be cut off before 
they came to the end of their queries, and the prophet might grow 
decrepit with age before he gained twenty proselytes in a nation.” 

Dr. Chalmers seems evidently to have changed his ground upon 
this question. At one time he spoke of the internal evidence as “ not 
apable of being so treated as to produce conviction in the minds of 
philosophical infidels, and as openivg a door to their most specious 
objections to Christianity.” 

At a subsequent period, this same able author, writing on this sub- 
Ject, after having admitted that he had experienced a modification of 
his former views, expresses him.elf’ thus: “ [nstead of holding all reli- 
gion as suspended on the miraculous evidence, we see this evidence 
itself standing at the bar of an anterior principle, and there Waiting 
for its authentication. There is a previous natural religion on whose 
aid we call for a determination of this matter.” 

It is a little strange that a mind so well stored and capacious should 
be found, in the brief space of a few years, Occupying opposing ex- 
treme positions on this question —first deeming the internal evidence 
as unsatisfuctory, and its employment, at least, of questionable pro- 
priety ; and next exalting it to a position anterivr anil superior to that 


Ub. xviii.} HARMONY OF THE DISPENSATIONS. 693 


of the external evidence—but it is often true that the most noble and 
lofty geniuses, impelled by their native extraordinary momentum, fail 
to poise upon the golden medium-point of sober truth. We consider 
both external and internal evidence important and satisfactory, each in 
its respective sphere. The external evidence is the pioneer, clearing 
the way and leading the inquirer to the contemplation of the strong 
foundations of the Christian edifice, or it constitutes the outward 
“towers and bulwarks” of its defense; the internal evidence is the 
settled occupant of the structure, who conducts us to the interior halls 
and magnificent apartments, or it answers to the connecting timbers 
and cementing walls, holding together as one grand united building al 
the essential parts, exhibiting the inner strength, utility, and beauty, 
and binding the whole with immovable stability upon its solid founda- 
tions, within its impregnable bulwarks. In the primal authentication 
of Christianity, the external evidence was essential to arrest the atten- 
tion and carry instant conviction to the minds of both the philosophical 
skeptics and the common people, and it is still essential to command 
the homage and convince the judgment of the learned, as well as to 
confirm the faith of all; but the internal evidence, while it is less 
adapted to the awakening of the attention and to the convincing of the 
more philosophical and skeptical, gains a more direct and easy access 
to the conscience and heart of the uneducated masses, exercising over 
them a more general and powerful influence. Indeed, this evidence, 
when brought to its consummation in the matured experience of the 
enlightened Christian, though he may not be able to present it so forei- 
bly to the conviction of others, yet to his own mind it. furnishes the 
highest and most convincing order of testimony in favor of the truth 
and reality of religion, for it is the direct inspoken witness of God_ to 
the soul.. Hence we conclude that, while both external and internal 
evidence are important, each in its peculiar sphere, they both are alike 
deserving of our careful consideration ; and we should not concern our- 
eelves as to which shall be assigned the superiority. 

The internal evidence of Christianity opens for exploration a field of 
almost boundless extent. It presents to our view the entire volume of 
revelation, scarce a single paragraph of which can be selected that does 
not furnish evidence more or less direct of the divinity of its origin. 
And this class of evidence is scarcely less limited in diversity than in 
extent. Whatever is found within the lids of the Bible bearing the 
impress of God, whether it relates to the harmony and consistency of 
its parts, the character and importance of its facts, the excellency and 
sublimity of its doctrines, the reasonableness and purity of its precepts 


694 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 3 


or the style and honesty of its writers, furnishes ground for an argu 
ment under the head of internal evidence of Christianity. 

Over an area so vast and varied, it is not to be ex pected or required 
that any two authors should travel in precisely the same path. While 
some will be impressed with one particular class of these evidences, 
others will be more attracted by the beauty and force of another class ; 
and thus each separate author, following the bent of his own mind. will 
bring forward something hitherto unnoticed to swell the amount of this 
ever-accumulating store of internal evidence. 

I. The first particular ground of argument in this department to 
which we invite attention is, the mutual connection and dependency bind- 
mg together as one united whole the Old and the New Testaments and. the 
Mosaic and the Christian dispensations. 

We think it a position almost incontrovertible, that the two Testa- 
ments and two dispensations stand or fall together. They hang in 
connection as essential kindred parts of an indivisible whole, and, as 
one has said, “like the two cherubs, look steadfastly toward each other, 
and toward the mercy-seat which they encompass.” As the wonderful 
adaptation of the different parts to each other pervading the works of 
nature so attests the skill and wisdom of their Author as to demon- 
strate his unity and divinity, even so the harmony pervading the parts 
of the two Testaments and two dispensations, and the perfect adapta- 
tion of the parts of the one to those of the other, exhibit the clearest 
evidence that the same Being is the Author of both, and that he must 
be possessed of the attributes of divinity. The glove is not more evi- 
dently adapted to the hand, nor the eye to the rays of the light, nor the 
veins and arteries to the conveyance of the blood, nor the lungs to the 
process of breathing, than are the teachings of the New Testament and 
the different parts of the gospel of Christ to those of the Old Testament 
and the Mosaic law. We view it as indubitable, that no unbiased, 
intelligent person, can carefully peruse the Old and the New Testaments, 
and not rise up from that perusal thoroughly convinced that both are 
true, or both are false. 

Having established, in former chapters, the genuineness and authen- 
ti:ity of these Scriptures, we will not here repeat the arguments there 
set forth, but proceed upon the admission that the facts of the Bible are 
faithfully given as they transpired. What, then, we ask, can be plainer 
than that the two Testaments and the two dispensations mutually prove 
each other? 

The testimony of Christ to the truth and authority of the Old Testa- 
ment is direct and unequivocal. His language is: “Search the Serip- 


Ch. xvii] MARMONY OF THRE DISPENSATIONS. 696 


tures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they 
which testify of me.” John v. 39, “Did ye never read in the Serip- 
tures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the 
head of the corner.” Matt. xxi. 42. “Ye do err, not knowing the 
Scriptures.” Matt. xxii. 29. “Then opened he their understanding, that 
they might understand the Scriptures.” Luke xxiv. 45. 

In these passages our Saviour gives his most unqualified testimony to 
the divine authority of the Scriptures of the Old Testament; hence, if 
the divinity of his mission and of the New Testament be admitted, that 
of the Old Testament necessarily follows. 

Equally conclusive is his testimony to the divine legation of Moses: 
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote 
of me.” John v. 46. “And he said unto them, These are the words 
which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must 
be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, 
and in the Psalms, concerning me.” Luke xxiv. 44. Again, it is writ- 
ten: “Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe 
all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered 
these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and 
all the prophets, he expounded unto them in ad/ the Scriptures the things 
concerning himself.” Luke xxiv. 25-27. “And they said one to an- 
other, Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked with us by the 
way, and while he opened to us the Scriptures.” Luke xxiv. 32. To 
Peter, in the garden of Gethsemane, he said: “Thinkest thou that I 
cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more 
than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be 
fulfilled, that thus it must be?” Matt. xxvi. 53,54. In his dispute 
with the Jews, the Saviour spoke as follows: “Ts it not written in your 
law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word 
of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken,” ete. John x. 34, 35. 

With this testimony of the Saviour that of his apostles perfectly 
corresponds. They are constantly quoting the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, always referring to them as the infallible word of God. 
Paul to» Timothy uses the following language: “From a child thou hast 
known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto sal- 
vation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Seripture is given 
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Tim. iii. 15,16. Peter 
speaks of the writings of St. Paul, connecting them with the Scriptures 
of the Old Testament, thus: “Which they that are unlearned and 
unstable wrest. as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own de 


696 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ai. B.& 


atruction.” 2 Peter iii. 16. Again, the same upostle declares: “ For the 
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of 
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter i. 21. The 
same apostle again says: “Of which salvation the prophets have in- 
quired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should 
come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of 
Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” 1 Peter i. 10, 11. 
In the Epistle to the Hebrews are recorded these words: “God, who at 
sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the 
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his 
Bon.” 

From all these scriptures it is manifest that Christ and his apostles, 
in the most direct and emphatic manner, recognized as of divine author- 
ity the Old Testament Scriptures and the legation of Moses. Hence it 
is here fully proved, that if the New Testament is the word of God, so 
is the Old; and if the mission of Christ was divine, so was that of 
Moses, 

The-next point is, to show in what manner the Old Testament sanc- 
tions and receives its fulfillment in the New. The entire Mosaic econ- 
omy was evidently designed as a temporary institution. Moses himself, 
and all the Jewish prophets after him, spoke of a “ Prophet whom God 
should raise up, like unto Moses”—of a Deliverer, Shiloh, Messiah, or 
King, who was to sit on the throne of David, and reign prosperously 
over both Jews and Gentiles. Pointing to this Ruler and his kingdom 
were innumerable types, ceremonials, and services, which, considered in 
themselves alone, were unmeaning, useless, and burdensume, but, viewed 
as receiving their fulfillment in Christ, were remarkably significant, 
sublimely illustrative of a most beneficent and enduring institution, and 
graciously communicative of richest blessings. 

This Mosaic economy was a complete and homogeneous system, the 
various parts of which had a manifest connection with and dependence 
upon each other. It was no senseless aggregation of disjointed and 
incongruous elements—of rites and ceremonies, of altars and sacrifices 
of priests and services, of laws and formulas —without affinity o1 
mutual assimilation, but every thing bore the signature of being part 
and parcel of the same great connected whole. Could a system thus 
harmoniously arranged and symmetrically connected, and, moreover, 
eo typically adumbrative of a new dispensation by which, after a lapse 
sf centuries, it was to be superseded, be a fictitious, human contriv- 
ance? 


un. xvi] HARMONY OF TIE DISPENSATIONS. 697 


How ean we account for the origin of the sacrificial institution, and 
the constant and appropriate reference thereby kept up and running 
through the entire Mosaic economy to the sinful character of man, and 
the great doctrine of vicarious atonement, and especially for the com- 
plete conformity of the whole to the gospel plan of redemption by the 
death of Christ, except upon the supposition that God was the author 
of both systems? Could human skill and foresight have devised such 
an extended system of types and shadows extending throughout centu- 
ries, and brought about so exact and marvelous a fulfillment in every 
particular? The supposition is utterly ineredible! The Mosaic insti- 
tution, considered in itself—in the wisdom of its precepts, the sublimity 
of its doctrines, the simplicity, purity, and grandeur of its ritual, and 
its harmonious consistency throughout—so far transcends all pagan 
religions and the proudest efforts of human genius in all ages, as to 
impress every impartial examiner with the fact, that it was not “of 
men,” but “from heaven.” But when we look at its exact and won- 
derful fulfillment in the gospel, the evidence of its divine origin is over- 
whelming! 

If the typical and ceremonial institution of Moses was the invention 
of men, it was an exhibition of madness and folly, combined with sys- 
tem and skill, perfectly irreconcilable with each other—of madness and 
folly, that a religious ceremonial so expensive and onerous should be 
voluntarily assumed or imposed upon any people, for no assignable rea- 
son whatever; of system and skill, that an institution so extensive and 
varied in its range and application should yet be so harmoniously 
cemented as one connected system, and so perfectly fitted in type and 
shadow to “better things to come.” The only rational conclusion on 
the subject is, that God was the author of both the law and the gos- 
pel, and that the one was the substance of which the other was the 
shadow. 

In all the numerous types and shadows connected with the Old Dis- 
pensation, and pointing to the “good things to come,” there is not one 
that does not find its antitype, substance, or accomplishment, in the 
gospel of Jesus. We look upon the paschal lamb, whose blood availed 
to the deliverance of the Israelites from the destroying angel, and we 
chink of “the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.” 
We look upon the brazen serpent lifted up in the wilderness by the 
hand of Moses for the healing of the bitten Israelites, and we think of 
the Son of God hanging on the cross, that all the world may look to 
him and live. We read of the Jewish temple, with its outer and inner 
eourts, its altars and its sacrifices, with its “ golden censer, and the ark 


698 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. it. B. 3 


of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden 
pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of 
the covenant, and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy 
seat”’—we look upon the priests, with their vestments, their robes, and 
their incense—in a word, we look upon all the services of that extended 
ritual, and we ask for the explanation of the whole system; but this 
explanation is to be found in the gospel of Christ, and nowhere else. 
Can it be that this wonderful harmony and mutual adaptation to each 
other of these two systems is the result of mere chance? Has it been 
produced by human contrivance? The supposition involves a moral 
impossibility. Between the two Testaments and the two dispensations 
there is an all-pervading and ever-present unity of design, extending 
through all the centuries of their history, impressing upon both the 
same signature, and assigning to each the same divine origin. 

II. We look next at the perfect consistency of all the parts of the 
Bible with each other, as an evidence of the divinity of its origin. This 
volume is not the production of one individual author, nor of one par- 
ticular age of the world; but it was written by as many as thirty or 
forty different authors, living in distant periods of time, extending 
through a space of sixteen hundred years. That so many writers thus 
distantly severed from each other, precluding the possibility of consul- 
tation or collusion, should write even a small treatise u pon any one sub- 
ject, and yet preserve a perfect consistency in all their statements and 
views, would be a phenomenon in itself truly marvelous, and such as 
has never been exhibited in all the human productions of the world. 
But how must this marvel be increased in reference to the Bible, when 
we reflect on the extent of the volume, the wide range and great diver- 
sity of subjects embraced, the variety exhibited by these authors—in 
character, in education, in customs, in country, in taste, in talent, in 
pursuit, and in condition in life! 

In this volume is embraced, with a greater or less degree of promi- 
nence, a vast range of topics—history, biography, agriculture, manu- 
factures, government, politics, trade, commerce, architecture, navigation, 
letters, music, poetry, travels, geography, philosophy, morals, religior 
These topics are all either particularly treated of in the Bible, or inci- 
dentally alluded to, with more or less distinctness, 

We find, also, great diversity in the character and circumstances of 
the sacred writers. They were taken from nearly all the walks of life, 
from the highest to the lowest. Kings, priests, prophets, statesmen, 
judges, physicians, shepherds, husbandmen, herdsmen, mechanics, fish- 
ermen, and gatherers of sycamore-fruit—some from all these depart 


Ub. xviii] HARMONY OF THE DISPENSATIONS. 699 


ments have contributed, each his portion, to the composition of the 
Bible. When, therefore, we look at the wide range and great diversity 
of subjects embraced, and the number and variety of character, pur- 
suit, taste, and condition of the writers—when we take all tnese facts 
into the account, we demand if the perfect agreement and consistency 
so manifestly preserved throughout the volume, is not satisfactory evi- 
dence that it is the product of no merely human effort? 

- Human productions, on whatever subject, are ever changing and 
passing away. One authority rises and flourishes to-day; to-morrow it 
is superseded by another, and sinks into oblivion. The text-books of 
one age are nue those of the next. In the progress of knowledge, it 
has been discovered that they contain important errors; hence taey are 
thrown aside and more approved standards are adopted, only, in their 
turn, to share a similar fate. No two merely human authors, unless 
they were mere copyists, have ever written books upon the same subject 
without contradicting each other, and few have written much without 
contradicting themselves. What two authors on grammar, geography, 
rhetoric, mathematics, history of the same country and period, agricul- 
ture, politics, ethics, or religion, have not disagreed—and most of them, 
again and again, come in direct conflict with each other? We may 
challenge the infidel world to name them. Indeed, unless, as already 
stated, they be mere copyists, or be in collusion, such an occurrence is, 
in the nature of things, impossible. But within the lids of the Bible, 
though infidelity has exerted her utmost ingenuity and strength for 
thousands of years, she has never been able to identify the first real 
contradiction! Objections without reason, and cavils without sense, she 
has brought forth by the legion. She has even shouted over a seeming 
contradiction, as though she had discovered a panacea for “all the ills 
that flesh is heir to;” but this exultation has ever been shown to have 
been premature. <A few beams of sound criticism have soon dispelled 
the clouds of ignorance on which the supposed contradiction was de- 
pendent for its existence; and clearly demonstrated that the contra- 
diction existed in the ignorance of man, and not in the word of 
God! 

In all the references to history, whether of the Jews or of pagan 
nations; in all the numerous statements bearing upon the geography 
of countries, or the manners and customs of nations; in all the refer- 
ence to the political status of empires, kingdoms, and provinces; in all 
the incidental allusions to agriculture, science, philosophy, or the arts ; 
in all the representations of the character, morals, and religion of nu- 
merous nations in different ages—in every and all of. these things, ar 


700 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii B.3 


embraced in the Bible, that wonderful volume stands forth unimpeach- 
able, defying an infidel world to convict its pages of the first real con- 
tradiction or error! Can such a book be of human origin? Is it a 
property of human productions to be thus perfect? Let honest reason 
decide the question. 

III. Another ground of argument on this subject is, the consistency 
of the administration of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, with what we 
learn of his ways, as exhibited in his works. 

Nothing is more common with infidels, than to aver that the ad- 
ministration of God, as revealed in the Bible, is inconsistent with 
what we learn of him from his works around us. Thus they endeavor 
to set the God of nature and the God of revelation at variance; and 
assuming (which none can dispute) that nature must be true, they pro- 
ceed to infer that revelation must be false. Christianity, on the other 
hand, strenuously contends that such is the perfect harmony and con- 
sistency of the ways of God, as revealed in the Bible, with what we 
know of his administration, as seen in the works of nature and of 
providence, that it follows, as a necessary inference, that the God of 
nature and of providence must also be the God of revelation. 

For the illustration of the Christian argument derived from this 
source, we will select only a few of the obvious points of analogy be- 
ween nature and revelation; but they shall be those points which infi- 
delity has seemed most delighted to use in her favor. 

First, the principle of progression developed in divine revelation has 
been made a ground of complaint by the infidel. Why is it, we are 
asked, that, if the Bible be of God a complete revelation of Christian- 
ity, the perfected dispensation of religion was not given to the world 
at once, and not the circuitous route adopted of keeping mankind for 
four thousand years under the comparative darkness and bondage of 
the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations? And why is it, that when 
God constitutes a person a Christian, he must. be first a babe and then 
a young man ere he can attain to maturity in Christian character? 
Is this consistent, it is urged, with the character we learn of God from 
his works? If God is infinite in goodness and power, can he adopt 
unnecessary delay in bestowing upon his creatures the blessings he sees 
they so much need ? 

In reply to these objections, we confidently appeal to the analogy be- 
tween nature and revelation. We think this will not only be sufficient 
to silence the cavil of the skeptic, but that it will furnish a very power- 
ful internal evidence of the truth of revelation. 

We ask, then, Is not this same principle of progression abundantly 


Ch. xviii. HARMONY OF THE DISPENSATIOUNS. 701 


exemplified in nature? We see it in vegetation: There is “first the 
vlade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.’ We see it in our 
own species: We pass through the several stages of infancy, child- 
hood, and youth, up to manhood and old age. We witness it in all 
educational developments: The child just inducted into school does 
not enter at once upon the study of the higher branches, but he begins 
with the alphabet, and gradually advances from one stage to the next 
in the ascending scale. Now, the infidel will not deny that God, 
had he seen proper su to order it, could just as easily have dispensed 
with this progressive order in nature. But such was not his plan. God 
formed the laws of nature after the counsel of infinite wisdom, Had 
he spoken the word he could with equal facility have so ordered it that 
the seed sown by the husbandman should mature into a ripe crop in 
a few hours, so that he might sow in the morning and reap in the after- 
noon of the same day. Let the skeptic first go and settle his quarrel 
with the God of nature, and then his cavils at revelation will be less 
inconsistent ! 

This progressive principle in revelation only shows that the God of 
nature and the God of the Bible work by the same rule; in other 
words, it evinces that revelation is confirmed by nature. When the 
world was in its infancy, God imparted to it, in the patriarchal dispen- 
sation, the alphabet of religion. When that was sufficiently matured, 
the Mosaic economy was unfolded ; and when “the fulness of time was 
come,” and all things in the best possible state of preparation for it, 
the full development of the gospel was made. In this succession of 
dispensations, and in their harmonious adaptation to each other, and 
to the condition of the world, there is a manifestation of wisdom and 
foresight transcending the utmost powers of mere humanity, and dem- 
onstrating the divine origin of the whole scheme. 

Between the great foundation principles of nature and revelation, 
there is manifest a perfect analogy and harmony, from which may be 
deduced a very forcible argument in favor of the truth of revelation. 
The points of the analogy in question are very numerous, and have 
furnished material for that inimitable volume, Butler’s Analogy. But 
we propose to call attention only to one or two leading positions: 

1. First, in both nature and revelation, the great foundation principles 
ure too profoundly mysterious for the comprehension of human wisdom. 

The mysteries of revelation have a thousand times been paraded, 
magnified, and ridiculed by skeptics. And although it has been as 
often shown that similar objections might with equal propriety be urged 
against nature, yet infidelity seems determined never to remember the 


102 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 3 


fact. The mysteries of the Bible have furnished the theme for many 
a sneering sarcasm; and perhaps will still continue to do so, so long as 
ridicule, instead of reason, shall continue to be the fivorite wea pon of 
infidelity. But we proceed to the consideration of the basis of our ar- 
gument as stated above. 

We first call attention to some of the leading foundation principles 
connected with revelation, and will show that they are profoundly mys- 
terious, and, to finite minds, truly incomprehensible. In turning our 
attention to the great subject-matter of revelation, the first leading im- 
portant doctrine presenting itself to our view, and challenging our 
faith, is the being and perfections of God. Here, at the very thresh- 
old of the great temple of revealed truth, we are called to the contem- 
plation of a theme which is probably as overwhelmingly mysterious to 
angelic as it certainly is to human intellects. For what finite mind can 
comprehend the infinite God? Our utmost capacity can only grasp 
with a feeble hand something of what he has been pleased to reveal 
concerning his attributes; but of the essential nature of that high and 
lofty One, we can know nothing. His essence is deeply enshrined in 
mystery, beyond the reach of finite minds. 

Another great foundation-truth of revelation is the divinity of Christ. 
No doctrine of the Bible is more clearly revealed, or occupies a more 
important position in the system of divinity, than this. That Christ is 
God and that he is man, the Bible declares most explicitly ; and our 
faith must bow submissively, and embrace the revealed fact. But what 
mind can comprehend this stupendous mystery? The atonement, the 
influence of the Spirit, the regeneration and sanctification of the soul— 
all these are also great essential doctrines of revelation; yet in each 
one of them, what a world of impenetrable mystery is embraced! The 
fact, then, is freely admitted, that revelation contains profound and inex- 
plicable mysteries. It is quite probable that, pertaining to the glorious 
doctrines revealed in the Bible, there are depths, and heights, and 
lengths, and breadths of sublime mysteries never yet explored by men 
or angels. And while the endless cycles of eternity shall endure, these 
may furnish richest themes of contemplation for the multitudes who 
stand before the throne. But for these mysteries of revelation, one of 
the important evidences that God is its author would be lacking—for 
surely a revelation which finite minds can thoroughly comprehend 
would be destitute of one important mark of its having emanated from 
the great and incomprehensible One. 

But when we turn our thoughts to the great foundation principles in 
connection with the science of nature, we find a most striking analogy 


Ch. xviit.] HARMONY OF THE DISPENSATIONS. 703 


to the mysteries of revelation. To maintain consistency with himself, 
the infidel should reject and refuse to believe in nature, until he can 
penetrate the profoundest depths of all her wonderful mysteries. But 
will he do so? What can he thoroughly comprehend of the essence of 
all material things? He cannot master the essence of an atom in mat 
ter, and yet he would spurn revelation from his faith on account f he 
mysteries. 

To begin at the foundation principles in nature, what can the wisest 
philosopher tell us of the essence of matter? can he thoroughly analyze 
and define it? He may lecture upon its properties, but he can no more 
comprehend its essence than he can create a world. 

Again, look at the great principle in nature called attraction, or the 
law of gravitation. What is it? Who can comprehend or define it.? 
We witness the constant evidence of the fact. We see the sun from 
his throne, in the center of his system, as philosophy and astronomy 
tell us, grasping the planets with his golden chain of attraction, and 
whirling them in their orbits with such marvelous exactitude that they 
shall not deviate from their prescribed pathway the breadth of a hair 
in a million of ages. But we pause and inquire, What is this attrac 
tion? Can philosophy answer? Can the wisdom of the schools solve the 
problem? All they can tell us is, that it is a power, an influence, a 
something, they know not what; and, for want of a better name, they 
eall it attraction. But to comprehend what this attraction is, is beyond 
the capacity of Sir Isaac Newton and all his disciples. They are as 
ignorant on this point as the most unlettered peasant. They know it 
is the power of Him who placed the sun in the firmament, and hung 
the earth upon nothing, but proud reason can go no farther. Tere 
then is mystery in nature, profound and overwhelming. Let boasting 
infidelity explain this stupendous mystery in nature—till then, let her 
not scoff at the mysteries of revelation. 

Another great foundation-stone in the temple of nature is the princi- 
ple of life. The fact that this principle exists is obvious to our senses. 
We are familiar with its phenomena in both the vegetable and animal 
kingdoms. The germinating seed, the growing grass, the bursting bud, 
and the unfolding leaf, no less than the blush of health in the face and 
the power of action in the body of man, testify to the fact that the 
principle of life exists. But what is it? Who can penetrate its essence? 
Physiology may discourse of the germinating principle in vegetation, 
of the warming sun and the refreshing rain, and of the fructifying 
properties of soils; but what are they without the living principle in 
the seed? And this living principle none can analyze, define, or com 


70-4 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [P.u. B.3 


prehend. And who has ever explained the principle of life in man? 
There is something within us that opens the senses to the wonders of 
the world about us, that paints the cheek and kindles the eye, that 
touches the muscle and moves the limb; but what is that something ? 
The profoundest philosopher is as ignorant as the child, We may read 
that “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became 
a living soul,” but we can go no farther. Beyond this Bible revealment 
natural science is dumb. The essence of life is still an inscrutable 
faystery. 

Look also at the mystery connected with the circulation of the blood. 
Since its discovery by Mr, Harvey, the fact has been obvious to all. 
But although we have had many learned lectures on the subject, this 
mystery in nature has never been explained. We have been told that 
it is the contraction and dilatation of the heart which propels the blood 
in one continuous current through the arteries to all parts of the body, 
whence it is taken up by the absorbents, and returned through the veins 
to the heart. But still the mystery in the process is unexplained. 
What causes the heart to contract and dilate? Here, at the very com- 
mencement, all the skill of philosophy is baffled—for the contractior 
and dilatation of the heart, on mere natural principles, must ever 1e- 
main an inexplicable mystery. It is the power of God that, sitting at 
the seat of life, prevents the golden bow] from being broken, or the 
pitcher from being broken at the fountain. But how this is effected no 
one can tell. The fact is plain, the manner of the fact involves the 
mystery. Volumes might be written in pointing out the great mys- 
teries of nature, at none of which does the faith of the infidel ever 
stagger, but at Bible mysteries he is ever ready to scoff. 

But that the mysteries in Scripture are so frequently urged by skep- 
tics as objections to Christianity, we would have said less than we have 
upon the subject. We, however, present one farther example of the 
mysteries of nature. We refer to the wonders of instinct as seen in the 
department of irrational creation, Not to speak of the elephant, the 
dog, the fox, and others of the class, we notice this marvelous power in 
that small but useful insect, the honey-bee. With a skill surpassing 
that of all the chemists in the world, it collects its luscious store from 
every appropriate flower of the fields and the woods; and with a math- 
ematical exactitude and mechanical ingenuity which no human ability 
can equal, it collects its materials and constructs its cells Now, we 
ask, who can explain this phenomenon? This little chemist and mech- 
anist never studied science, never was at school; and yet, by mere in- 
alinet. it exhibits a skill and ingenuity not susceptible of improvement. 


Ch. xviii.] HAKMONY OF THE DISPENSATIONS. 705 


And, to add to the marvel, this wonderful little chemist and mechanist 
has made no advancement through the lapse of centuries; but, precisely 
as we witness now, it collected its sweets and constructed its store-houses 
amid the bowers of Eden. Is not this a mystery in nature? 

Thus we see that in both nature and revelation the great foundation 
principles embody incomprehensible mysteries, exhibiting in this the 
most perfect analogy. From this fact, the necessary conclusion should 
be that, if we embrace in our faith, without reserve, the entire system of 
nature, notwithstanding the mysteries it involves, we cannot without 
manifest inconsistency reject from our faith the system of revelation, 
because of the mysteries it may embrace. In reference to both systems, 
the mysteries lie not in the facts but in the manner of the facts. We 
may believe the facts though the manner of those facts be beyond om 
comprehension. Had revelation come to us free from all mystery, the 
same captious infidelity that now sneers at the sublime mysteries of the 
Bible would, doubtless, still deride and reject Christianity on the 
ground that it was destitute of sublime mysteries such as are recorded 
in the volume of nature. But the Christian philosopher, as he peruses 
these two great volumes, and marks the striking analogy between them, 
seeing upon both the same signature, may exult in the evidence thus 
derived that the same God who made the world is the author of his 
Bible. 

2. In both nature and revelation, though we find much that is mys- 
terious, yet we need not be experimentally or practically much the 
losers on that account—for those mysteries do not pertain to such things 
as are essential to our happiness either here or hereafter. They are 
what may be studied or let alone, as we choose, without any serious 
‘detriment. 

It is a very impressive point of analogy between the two systems, 
and strongly demonstrative of the truth of revelation, that, both in ref- 
erence to the temporal things of this life and the spiritual things of the 
next, both in nature and revelation, all that is most valuable or essential to 
our welfare is easy to be understood, and is readily accessible to all classes. 

A few illustrations will render this point of analogy clear and evi- 
dent. First, look at the temporal blessings of life connected with nat: 
ure. What is more essential to the welfare of all sentient living things 
than the surrounding atmosphere? Without it, man would immedi- 
ately perish from the earth; without it, beast and bird, and tree and 
plant, would droop and die. Yet, in this department, how abundant 
‘he provisions of a merciful Providence! The globe is encircled, forty 
niles high, with a volume of this life-preserving fluid. 

AS 


706 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Prima 


H ow essential to our welfare is the great staple article of water, and 
how abundant the supply! The oceans, the rivers, the creeks, the lit- 
tle branches, the springs, and even the floating clouds, are all employed 
as ministering servants to furnish and convey to man, and beast, and 
bird, and tree, and shrub, and plant, and to all that has life, an abun- 
dant supply of this invaluable commodity. 

But if we look at revelation we find its pages stamped with this 
same impressive evidence of having proceeded from God. What are 
the mysterious matters and things “hard to be understood” in the 
Bible? Are they the great doctrines and precepts connected directly 
with the salvation of the soul? hese are all so plain that “the way- 
faring man, though a fool, need not err therein.” In order to our sal- 
vation, we need not puzzle over the import of mysterious and yet un- 
fulfilled prophecies, or the abstruse and knotty questions in theology. 
Repentance and faith, which can be understood as easily by the unedu- 
cated as by the learned, are the only absolute conditions on which salvation 
is proffered. With these terms all may comply. And thus the provision 
of saving mercy in the gospel is rendered as free, as full, and as abun- 
dant as the air we breathe, or the water we drink from the provisions 
of nature; and so this great point of analogy is fully carried out be- 
tween nature and revelation, giving strong reason for believing that the 
two systems have emanated from the same divine Source. 

{V. We conclude this chapter by noticing the analogy between reve- 
lation and some remarkable dispensations of Divine Providence, 

It has been argued that the Bible cannot be a revelation from God, 
because it represents God as authorizing the extermination of the Ca- 
naanites, which would have been a cruelty, inconsistent with the divine 
character. 

In reply to this, it is enough to state that the destruction of the Ca- 
naanites, as commanded in Seripture, is perfectly consistent with those 
dispensations of Providence by which many thousands are sometimes 
destroyed by an earthquake or yoleano. In both cases, the responsi- 
bility of the destruction is with God. If the God of providence, con- 
sistently with his attributes, could destroy by the agency of a voleano 
the inhabitants of Pompeii and Herculaneum, the God of the Bible, 
with equal consistency, may destroy the Canaanites by the agency +f the 
Israelites. The agency or instrumentality by which the work is per- 
furmed cannot change its moral character. The infidel admits that 
God, by his providence, destroys multitudes by earthquakes and voleanoes, 
but, inconsistently with himself, denies that he may do the same thing 
through the agency of a nation. 


Ch. xviii.) HARMONY OF THE DISPENSATIONS. 107 

The Canaanites were judicially cut off for their sins, because “ the 
cup of their iniquity was full.” The Judge of all had the right thus 
to execute upon them the sentence, which, by their long-continued 
wickedness, they deserved. And if God may punish them thus se- 
verely for their sins, he may select the agency for the execution of the 
sentence. In this case, we see the harmony between revelation and 
providence, tending to evince that the God of providence is also the 
God of the Bible. We see farther that Christianity is perfectly con- 
sistent with nature and with providence, while infidelity is inconsistent 
with both the one and the other, and equally so with herself. Let her 
first go and be reconciled with nature and with providence, and then 


her quarrel with revelation will be ended. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVIII. 


10. How may it be shown that the Old 
Testament sanctions the New, and 
receives therein its fulfillment? 


Question 1. What is included under the 
head of internal evidence? 
2. Do our standard authors agree as to 


the relative importance of external | 11. 


and internal evidence? 
. What is the position of Dr. Chalmers 


on the subject? 12 
. What relation do these classes of evi- 
dence sustain to each other? 13 


. Which is the more convincing of the 
two to the Christians? 


. Is the range of internal evidence lim- | 14. 


ited, or extended ? 

. What is the first evidence of this kind 
noticed ? 

. What testimony did the Saviour give 
to the truth of the Old Testa- 
ment? 

. What was the testimony of the apos- 
tles on the subject? 


16. 


How is an argument founded on the 
consistency of the different parts 
of the Bible with each other? 


. Does the Bible contain any real con- 


tradictions ? 


. How is it shown that the God of the 


Bible is consistent with the God of 
nature? 

To what points of analogy is the 
appeal made? 


. What departments in both nature 


and revelation are mysterious, and 
what are plain? 

What objections have been urged 
founded upon the dispensations of 
Divine Providence, and how have 
they been answered? 


708 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. IP. ii. B. 3 


CHARTER wx LX. 


ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE—LIFE OF CHRIST—STYLE OF THE SACRED 
WRITERS — ADAPZATION OF DOCTRINES TO THE CHARACTER AND 
CONDITION OF MAN, 


I. As those skilled and practiced in such things can judge of the 
qualifications of a mechanist or of an artist by exam.ning his produe- 
tion, whether it be a machine that he has ccnstructed or a piece of 
statuary or of painting that he has executed, so we form a judgment 
of the character of an author from the perusal of a book he has writ- 
ten; and although this judgment is not in strictness the result of mathe- 
matical demonstration, yet it often conveys quite as satisfactory convic- 
tion to the mind. For example, who can read the Iliad of Homer, the 
Principia of Newton, or the Orations of Demosthenes, and not be con- 
vinced that the first was a poet, the second a philosopher, and the third 
an orator? It is on a precisely similar principle that we conduct the 
internal argument for Christianity. The book called the Bible has 
found its way into our world. Men have differed in their judgment as 
to its origin, character, and importance; and one mode of determining 
this question is, by examining the volume itself. The evidence derived 
from this source is called internal, and, to the candid and unsophisti- 
cated mind, is often of the most convincing character; though skeptics 
are seldom disposed to give it an impartial hearing. 

There are but three different classes of men from whom the Bible 
could have emanated: it was either written by good, inspired men, by 
good, uninspired men, or by bad men. 

The examination of the volume itself may easily satisfy the impar- 
tial as to which of these classes of men were its authors. Bad men 
could not if they would, and would not if they could, have written such 
a book. As well might “the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard 
his spots,” as for wicked, unholy, bad men, to write such a volume as the 
Bible! ‘It is a moral impossibility. A bitter fountain cannot send 
forth sweet water, nor can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Had a 
set of bad men, in any given age, combined for the express purpose, 


Uh, xix.) ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE, 709 


their groveling, polluted intellects never could have conceived the pure 
and lofty sentiments which everywhere breathe through the Scriptures, 
much less could they have maintained the same unearthly and holy 
characteristics throughout so extended and diversified a production. 
How, then, can we conceive it possible that thirty or forty base and 
atrociously wicked men, living in different ages and parts of the world, 
extending through a period of sixteen hundred years, and having no 
knowledge of each other, or possible chance of collusion, could have 
thus combined for such a deception, and maintained throughout so mar- 
velous a consistency? He who can believe this, exhibits a larger ca- 
pacity of belief than if he were to subscribe to every miracle of the 
Bible at which infidelity has ever scoffed! When a set of deceitful 
hypocrites and perjured wretches—as the authors of the Bible must have 
been, if they were bad men at all—ecan produce such a volume under the 
circumstances, then a mere child or idiot may have written the Elements 
of Euclid, or the Principia of Newton! If bad men wrote the Bible, then 
it is a tissue of profanity and lies from beginning to end; for they pro- 
fess everywhere to be God-fearing men, speaking with authority from 
Heaven. And, moreover, they record in deepest colors their own 
shame, and utter the severest denunciations against themselves! Can 
this ls2 reconciled with the principles of human nature? Infidelity can 
point to nothing like it in all the history of our race. From what 
source soever the Bible originated, it is morally certain that it never was 
conceived or brought forth by bad men. 

But could it have been the production of a ‘set of good but uninspired 
men? This hypothesis is equally absurd and impossible. The writers 
of the Bible do not profess to speak on their own authority, or in their 
own name, but claimed to have received their commission from God; and, 
in confirmation of that claim, they performed many notable and public 
miracles. Now, we demand, can good men go before the world with a 
lie in their mouths? Can they preface their communication with 
“Thus saith the Lord,” when the Lord has not spoken? Can they pro- 
fess to be “moved by the Holy Ghost,” when they are only moved by 
themselves? And would God sanction the impious falsehood and de- 
ception by empowering them to work miracles in its confirmation? 
That the Bible was produced by good but uninspired men is an absurd- 
ity—an utter impossibility! Hence, as neither bad men nor good unin- 
spired men could have produced it, there is but one other source for its 
origin left—it must have been produced—if ever produced at all—by 
good inspired men. If infidelity admits this conclusion, she yields the 
whole question, and subscribes to divine revelation; if she denies it, 


710 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pris Bes: 


she may with equa’ reason deny that the Bible exists, and set her soph- 
istry at work to show that the millions of mankind, through all these 
long centuries, while they imagined they were reading the book called 
the Bible, were all the while in a dream! Infidelity may sneer at the 
conclusion presented, but she cannot escape from it, except by proving 
that the Bible was either the production of bad men, or of good but 
uninspired men; and when she shall have accomplished this, to prove 
that there never.was a Bible in the world, or that light and darkness 
are the same, will be but an easy task for her masterly logic! 

II. A very powerful internal evidence of the truth of Christianity 
may be derived from the character of Christ, as portrayed in the evan- 
gelical history. We do not here include his miracles and predictions— 
which have been considered under the head of external evidence—but 
refer merely to the personal history of the man Christ Jesus. In this 
there is abundant testimony to satisfy every candid mind that he was 
no impostor, but, as he claimed to be, “a Teacher come from God.” 

1. First, look at the purity of his life. What impostor ever exhibited 
a deportment so blameless—a life so free from pride, ostentation, vanity, 
selfishness, or worldly-mindedness ? Throughout his whole life goodness 
marks his intercourse with mankind. He engages in nothing to afflict 
or distress—nothing to produce discord in social circles, or insurrections 
in civil communities; he appears among men as the “Prince of Peace.” 
It was the business of his life to go about doing good. Were any blind, 
he gave them sight; were any deaf, he restored their hearing ; were any 
dumb, he loosed their tongues; were any lame, he said, “Arise, take up 
thy bed, and walk;” were any sick, he said, “Wilt thou be made 
whole?” were any possessed of devils, he “rebuked the foul spirit,” and 
relieved the possessed; and “to the poor he preached the gospel.” So 
abundant were his acts of benevolence, that multitudes of the afflicted 
followed him up in his travels, or cried after him as he passed, thronged 
him as he entered the house of a friend, pressing through the crowd 
to “touch the hem of. his garment;” and, of all that ever came to 
him in distress, not one did he turn empty away. And though he 
was poor, not having “where to lay his head,” he never received a 
reward for any of his acts of merey; but, a homeless wanderer, he went 
about doing good to others. Can it be that a life so blameless, so 
devoted to doing good, so self-sacrificing, was that of an impostor? 

2. But look at his patience, amid all his persecutions, and his kind- 
ness toward his enemies. He bears insult and injury, mockery and 
derision, with calm composure and meek submission. His character 
was aspersed, and all manner of evil spoken of him falsely. His best 


Cn, xix.} ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 7) 


acts were attributed to the worst of motives, and his virtues were con- 
verted into crimes. He was pursued from city to city with the tongue 
of slander, and with the venom of demons his enemies clamored for his 
blood; but he bore it all, without recrimination or the slightest effort 
to take revenge. He wept in sympathy over the devoted city of Jeru- 
salem, and, with his dying lips, prayed for his murderers: “ Father, for- 
give them, for they know not what they do.” Are these the charac- 
teristics of an impostor? Could he who thus lived and thus died be a 
cunning deceiver, practicing a fraud upon the world? The very suppos- 
ition is monstrous! 

3. Next we view the character of Christ as a Teacher. And, first, 
we notice his Sermon on the Mount. Here, within the limits of three 
chapters, is comprised the most luminous presentation of moral and 
religious truth contained in any language. As he opened his mouth 
und taught, a shower of rich beatitudes came down upon his waiting 
hearers like clusters of ripe fruit from the tree of life! We cannot 
pause to analyze this inimitable sermon, but it contains every conceiv- 
able excellence—it is simple and comprehensive, majestic and sublime, 
tender and impressive, earnest and pathetic —it teaches the purest 
morality and the loftiest devotion, in the clearest and most forcible 
style. No unprejudiced mind can peruse it and fail to coincide with 
the multitudes who “were astonished at his doctrine,” and testified that 
“he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” 

Again, we look at the instructions of Christ in his parables. Here 
the divinity of his character as a teacher conspicuously shines forth. 
Never before nor since did this method of teaching appear with so much 
beauty and force. With the profounaest skill, by the use of the para- 
ble, he riveted attention, removed difficulties, disarmed prejudice, shed 
light upon the understanding, convinced the conscience, and, transiorm- 
ing the bigot into an impartial judge, led him by gentle and imper- 
ceptible degrees to pronounce upon himself the sentence of condemna- 
tion. Do we wish to see the richness and fullness of gospel grace, the 
earnest importunity of the gospel call, and the fallacious pleas and 
senseless excuses by which sinners evade this call—do we wish to see all 
these things forcibly set forth?—we should read the parable of the Great 
Supper. Would we have a view of the sincere and benevolent intention 
with which the gospel should be proclaimed to all classes, and of the vari- 
ous kinds of hearers who listen to the word, and the reasons why so small 
a portion of them profit thereby?—we may read it in all its transcend- 
ent beauty and force in the parable of the Sower. Would we behold 
‘a more than pature’s deepest colors, the folly and drudgery of sin, the 


712 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P ii B.3 


al-surpassing yearnings of the bowels of Infinite Love for the salvation 
of the wandering rebel, and the thrill of joy and gladness with which 
all heaven will celebrate the return to God of every penitent—would 
we witness a description of all this, wrought up to the loftiest degree of 
pathos and power that language can reach ?—we have it in the parable 
of the Prodigal Son. 

4. But we look also at the circumstances connected with the condem- 
uation and death of Jesus, and witness there the evidence that he was 
more than man. Behold him before Pilate! Did ever a criminal dis. 
play such serene composure under such circumstances? Did ever a 
Judge pronounce such a eulogy upon him whom, with the next breath, 
he ordered to execution? “T find no fault in him,” said Pilate; and 
added: “Take ye him and crucify him!” Can this be a wicked de- 
ceiver? But look upon the scene of his death —upon the robe of 
derision and the crown of thorns—upon the cross, the nails, and the 
hammer—upon the rending of the vail and the going out of the sun— 
upon his pierced side, and hands, and feet, and upon his streaming 
hblood—listen to his dying groans, and to his last prayer for his enemies, 
and say, Was not “this the Son of God”? Could an impostor have 
lived such a life of purity and self-sacrifice? Could he have exhibited 
such calm serenity of soul amid such “cont radiction of sinners,” labored 
so perseveringly for the world that hated him, and died such a death of 
God-like composure, exhibiting to the last such compassion for his mur- 
derers? Sober reason affirms that Jesus was a good man, and not an im- 
postor ; and if so, then he was the Son of God, and his religion is true. 

5. Even some of the bitter opponents of Christianity, in an hour of 
more sober reflection than usual, have uttered some noble and eloquent 
sentiments concerning Christ and his teachings. Rousseau says: “I will 
confess to you that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admi- 
ration, as the purity of the gospel has its influence on my_ heart. 
Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp of diction; 
how mean, how contemptible are they, compared with the Scriptures ! 
Is it possible that a book at once so simple and sublime should be 
merely the work of man? Is it possible that the saered personage 
whose history it contains should be himself a mere man? Do we find 
that he assumed the tone of an enthusiast or ambitious sectary? What 
sweetness, what purity in his manners; what an affecting gracefulness 
in his delivery; what sublimity in his maxims: what profound wisdom 
in his discourses; what presence of mind in his replies; how great the 
command over his passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, 
who could so live and so die without weakness and without ostentation ? 


Uh. xix.} ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 713 


When Plato described his imaginary good man, with all the rname of 
guilt, yet meriting the highest rewards of virtue, he describe | exactly 
the character of Jesus Christ; the resemblance was so striking;, that all 
the Christian Fathers perceived it. What prepossession, what blind- 
ness, must it be to compare the son of Sophroniscus (Socrates) to the 
Son of Mary! What an infinite disproportion is there between them! 
Socrates, dying without pain or ignominy, easily supported his character 
to the last; and if his death, however easy, had not crowned his life, 
it might have been doubted whether Socrates, with all his wisdom, was 
any thing more than a vain sophist. He invented, it is said, the theory 
of morals. Others however, had before put them in practice; he had 
only to say, therefore, what they had done, and to reduce their example 
to precept. But where could Jesus learn, among his competitors, that 
pure and sublime morality of which he only has given us both precept 
and example? The death of Socrates, peaceably philosophizing with 
his friends, appears the most agreeable that could be wished for; that 
of Jesus, expiring in the midst of agonizing pains, abused, insulted, and 
accused by a whole nation, is the most horrible that could be feared. 
Socrates, in receiving the cup of poison, blessed the weeping executioner 
who administered it; but Jesus, in the midst of excruciating tortures, 
prayed for his merciless tormentors. Yes, if the life and death of 
Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of 
a God! Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, 
my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction; on the contrary, the his- 
tory of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested 
as that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposition, in fact, only shifts the 
difficulty, without obviating it; it is more inconceivable that a number 
of persons should agree to write such a history, than that one only should 
furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the 
diction, and strangers to the morality, contained in the gospel, the marks 
of whose truth are so striking and inimitable that the inventor would 
be a more astonishing man than the hero.” 

In the apostolic writings we find also very conclusive marks of truth- 
fulness and candor. These disciples never pause to eulogize the tran- 
scendent virtues of their Master, or to express their admiration of his 
wonderful doings; they everywhere simply narrate facts as they trans- 
pired, in the plainest and most natural style, yet preserving a tone of 
solemn dignity suitable to the important events they record. Hannah 
More well says, “These sober recorders of events the most astonishing, 
are never carried away by the circumstances they relate into any pomp 
of diction, into any use of superlatives. There is not, perhaps, in the 


714 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pia Gg 


whole Gospels a single interjection, not an exclamation, nor any artifice 
to call the reader’s attention to the marvels of which the relaters were 
the witnesses. Absorbed in their holy task, no alien idea presents itself 
to their mind ; the object before them fills it. They never digress—are 
never called away by the solicitations of vanity, or the suggestions 9f 
curiosity. No image starts up to divert their attention. There is, 
indeed, in the Gospels much imagery, much allusion, much allegory ; 
but they proceed from their Lord, and are recorded as his. The writ- 
ers never fill up the intervals between events. They leave cireum- 
stances to make their own impression, instead of helping out the reader 
by any reflections of their own. They always feel the holy ground on 
which they stand. They preserve the gravity of history and the sever- 
ity of truth, without enlarging the outline or swelling the expression.” 

IIT. An argument, also, from internal evidence may be founded upon 
the style of the sacred writers. How marked is the diversity in the style 
of Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Amos, 
and of all the Old Testament writers!) And no one ean read the New 
Testament and not be struek with the peculiar characteristics of style 
in the several authors. In the writings of Paul, what massive strength 
and force of logic; what ardor of devotion ; what firmness of purpose ; 
What dauntless courage! In the writings of John, what sympathetic 
tenderness ; what sweetness and amiability! And in Peter, and James, 
and all the rest, there is apparent in each a style of his own. It cannot 
but be observed how fully the peculiar style of each author is sustained 
throughout all his writings. Could such consistency have been preserved 
by an impostor ? 

IV. The next source of internal evidence to which we call attention 
is the doctrines of revelation. If these be such as are worthy of God, 
and adapted to the character, the condition, the necessities, and the hopes 
of man, and such as could not have been discovered by human reason, 
then it will follow that they have been revealed from heaven. 

We need not pause to show how vastly superior are the writings of 
the Scriptures, both on moral and religious subjects, to all the wisdom 
of the schools of pagan philosophy. The ancient Jews were less 
learned than the Greeks and the Romans. How, then, could the former 
so excel the latter, unless they were divinely assisted ? Infidelity may 
boast of the system of natural religion; but, we demand, to what does 
it all amount without revelation? But for what modern infidels have 
purloined from the New Testament, they would have been as ignorant 
of the unity of God and of the divine attributes, of the duty of man 
and of the doctrine of immortality, as were the pagan philosophers 


Ch. xix.) ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 715 


Were the philosophers of Greece and Rome, in the Augustan age, infe- 
rior in learning to the infidels of the present day? If not, then why 
were their notions on these subjects so vague and indefinite, and blended 
with so much uncertainty, so inferior to those of the infidels of our day? 
Simply because our modern infidels have borrowed from the gospel. 
From the divine philosophy of Jesus and the sublime ethics of his 
apostles they have stolen their wisdom, but refuse to acknowledge the 
source to which they are so much indebted. “After grazing,” as one 
expresses it, “in the pastures of revelation, they boast of growing fat 
by nature.” Those glorious presentations of the divine attributes, the 
inimitable golden rule of the Saviour, and the confident announcements 
of immortality, which so enrich the pages of revelation, never could 
have been discovered by human reason ; but they are every way worthy 
of God, from whom they have been derived, and, when revealed, reason 
can attest their truth and excellence. 

Were it necessary, it could easily be shown that an internal evidence 
of the truth of revelation might be deduced from every single doctrine 
and precept of the Bible. But we can only present a few of the prom- 
inent doctrines, and exhibit the argument founded on them as a sample 
of the rest. 

1. The doctrine of human depravity, or the moral corruption of man’s 
nature, is very clearly revealed in Scripture. It runs through both 
Testaments with a prominence which cannot be overlooked. It is seen 
in the lawand in the gospel—in the writings of Moses and the prophets, 
and of Christ and his apostles. It need not be insisted how perfectly 
accordant is this doctrine with the internal consciousness and experi- 
ence of every accountable man; nor how abundantly it is confirmed by 
the universal history of the world. In our present argument we take 
these matters for granted, referring for their proof to the appropriate 
place in the systems of divinity. But, we inquire, how can we account 
for the appearance of so clear and satisfactory a presentation of this 
doctrine in the Bible, and nowhere else? While the pagan nationa, 
although they could not be ignorant of the fact of the general corruy- 
tion of man, had very vague and indefinite notions as to the nature cf 
this moral disease, and knew nothing of its origin and remedy, the Bible 
sheds abundant illumination upon the whole subject. While philosophy 
had been essaying in vain to determine whence this moral malady arose, 
and setting forth numerous fallacious and fruitless schemes for its com 
trol or eradication, revelation conducts us to the origin of our race, 
records the history of the fall of man, and proclaims and satisfactorily 
accounts for the moral corruption of the entire species. Now, we 


716 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1i. B. 3 


demand, does not the facet that this great doctrine, whose truth is re. 
corded upon the tablet of every conscience, and upon every page of the 
world’s history, is thus fully revealed, both as to its nature and origin, 
in the Bible, and nowhere else, demonstrate that revelation is not of 
men, but from God ? 

2. But the Bible not only thus describes, in its true character, the 
moral state of man, but it sets forth the only true remedy. The doc- 
trine of the atonement, running through all the law and the gospel, pre- 
sents the only rational ground of pardon and salvation for the sinner of 
which the world has ever heard. Philosophy, falsely so called, and 
pseudo-theology, have prated much and long about the mere mercy of 
God, his prerogative, repentance alone, ete., as being rational and practi 
cable grounds of pardon and salvation; but all these schemes have 
been clearly shown to be futile and inadequate, Besides, without reve- 
lation, what do we know of the abstract mercy and prerogative of God? 
If his merey admits the sinner to suffer for his sins here, for a limited 
period, what assurance can we have, without revelation, that the same 
mercy will not consign him to endless sufferings hereafter? Indeed, 
without revelation we may realize that we are guilty, polluted, and 
miserable, but we can find no remedy. We are left to the uncertainty 
of conjecture, or the darkness of despair. Atonement, as exhibited in 
the Bible and nowhere else, furnishes the only remedy in the ease. It 
alone shows how “God can be just, and the justifier of him which 
believeth in Jesus.” 

3. Again, man is not only guilty, and needs pardon, but he is polluted, 
and needs cleansing. The gospel also furnishes the divine influence upon 
the soul, to “cieanse it from all unrighteousness.” “As the atonement 
of Christ stoops to the judicial destitution of man, the promise of the Holy 
Spirit meets the case of his moral destitution. One finds him without 
any means of satisfying the claims of justice, so as to exempt him from 
punishment; the other without the inclination or the strength to avail 
himself even of proclaimed clemency and offered pardon, and becomes 
the means of awakening his judgment, and exciting, and assisting, and 
crowning his efforts to obtain that boon and its consequent blessings, 
The one relieves him from the penalty, the other from the disease of 
sin; the former restores to man the favor of God, the other renews him 
in his image.” (Watson’s Institutes.) 

Can that system be the contrivance of wicked impostors which alone 
furnishes information the most desirable, the most important, the most 
beneficial to man, which could possibly be conceived—which unfolds 
his true character, portrays his helpless condition, and points to his only 


Ch. xix.) ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE. 711 


remedy? Can that revelation be an imposture which finds man in 
darkness and gives him light, in weakness and gives him strength, in 
cuilt and gives him pardon, and in pollution and gives him sanctifica- 
tion? Can a system of doctrines so pregnant with truth, so adapted to 
our nature and necessities, and which so “commends itself to every 
man’s conscience in the sight of God,” be of earthly origin and 
Jevice? Reason testifies, No; it cannot be! This great and sublime 
system which teaches the depravity and guilt of man through the fall, 
and his redemption and salvation through the atonement of Christ and 
the sanctification of the Spirit, is no plant of earthly production, It grew 
not in nature’s soil. It is a seed which could only have originated and 
heen warmed into life in the bosom of infinite Wisdom and Goodness. 

4+. Once more, the Scriptures alone bring fully to light the doctrine 
of immortality. 

On this question pagan philosophy, in its most enlightened and vir- 
tuous phase, has ever trembled between hope and despair; but Chris- 
tianity has exultantly “brought life and immortality to light.” We 
need not say how necessary is a belief in this doctrine to our welfare 
and happiness in this life. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ,” 
said an apostle, “we are of all men most miserable.” Bereft of that 
hope of a future state of being and enjoyment, how cheerless and dreary 
would be the present! What of earth could be found worthy the atten- 
tion and concern of our exalted powers? But to the Bible, and espe- 
cially to the revealments of the New Testament, we are indebted for all 
the assurance we can gain of future reward for the privations, toils, and 
sufferings of the present state. 

Upon this subject how driveling and unsatisfying are the dreamy 
conjectures of pagan philosophy! How infinitely superior to all these 
the solid and glowing hopes with which revelation inspires her votaries! 
David exclaims: “As for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness ; 
I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness. . . . My flesh also 
shall rest in hope. ... Yea, though I walk through the valley of the 
shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me... . I shall 
dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” 

The apostles of Christ were equally exultant in their expressione 
upon this subject. St. Paul exclaims: “Our light affliction, which is 
but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal 
weight of glory. ... For we know that if our earthly house of this 
tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made 
with hands, eternal in the heavens.” And St. Peter speaks of “an 
inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” St 


718 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 3 


John says: “Tt doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know 
that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as 
he is.” Can that revelation be an imposture which furnishes the only 
solid foundation for these glorious hopes? Surely a system of doctrine 
so well adapted to the nature, the necessities, and the hopes of man, 
must have God for its author! 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIX 


Question 1. By what method do we| 7. What argument is drawn froa. 


prove the divinity of the Bible the circumstances connected with 

from its contents? the condemnation and death of 
2. What three different class of men are Jesus? 

those from whom the Bible must| 8. What is the substance of Rousseau’s 

have emanated ? admission on the subject ? 
3. How is it shown that bad men would| 9. What particular marks of genu- 

not and could not have written it? ineness do we find in the apostolic 
t. How is it shown that good, uninspired writings? 

men could not have written it? 10. What is the argument from the style 
5. By what class, then, must it have of the sacred writers? 

been written? 11. How may an argument be founded 
6. What is the argument founded on the on the doctrines of revelation ? 


character of Christ as portrayed in | 12. To what particular doctrines is ref 
the New Testament? erence made? 


Ch. xx’ EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 719 


CHAPTER XX. 


EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE, CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO MEN IN 
GENERAL AND TO CHRISTIANS IN PARTICULAR. 


“ By their fruits ye shall know them,” is one of the maxims of Jesus, 
which is not entirely dependent upon revelation for its sanction. Its 
truth and excellence are manifested and confirmed by the every-day 
transactions of life, and commend themselves to the common sense of 
every intelligent person. Philosophy teaches us to judge of the cause 
by the effect, in like manner as it is the dictate of practical common 
sense to judge of the tree by its fruit. To no‘subject does this princi- 
ple apply with more propriety and force than to religion, After all the 
learned discussion of the evidences of Christianity, and the formidable 
array of arguments from miracles and prophecy, sustained and illus- 
trated by appeals to history, philosophy, analogy, and reason ; after all 
that may be so forcibly presented of the internal evidence founded on 
the consistency of the different parts of revelation, the character of the 
sacred writers, and the excellence of the doctrines revealed, there is still 
another species of internal evidence more forcible and convincing to 
the mass of common people than any we have yet named; we mean 
that evidence which results from experience. 

T. We will contemplate this subject, first, in reference to the effects 
of Christianity, in transforming the moral character of individuals. 

The system of truth is symmetrical and cohering. All its elements 
hang together, like links in a chain, as consistent parts of an harmonious 
whole. We assume it as a maxim that one truth can neither be incon 
sistent with another in its nature nor productive of evil in its tendeney 
According to this principle, therefore, it will be easy to subject the 
question, as to the truth or falsehood of Christianity, to an experi- 
mental test. 

The great Founder of Christianity never required the people to be- 
lieve in him without evidence. He embodied one of his maxims, by 
which all men might test the truth of his doctrines, in this interrogatory: 
“To men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” And God says 


720 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. 5. 5, 


to rebellious Israel: “Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, 
if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a bless- 
ing that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Revelation 
boldly challenges to be tested. If there is aught within the whole 
range of science which can bear being tried upon the Baconian plan 
of founding theory upon eaperiment, it is Christianity. All that she 
demands is, that her doctrines may be fairly brought to this test. She 
has nothing to fear from the result. If Christianity be an imposture, 
a mere fabricated cheat, her tendency cannot but be evil; the stream 
must partake of the nature of the fountain. On the other hand, if the 
effect of Christianity is ascertained to be invariably good, then it will 
follow that it must be a system of truth. 

1. Let us inquire then: What is the influence of Christianity upon 
the moral character of individuals? If we examine the testimony of the 
apostles themselves, we find them very explicit in regard to the moral 
change effected by Christianity. According to their teaching, Chris. 
tianity produces a change in moral character from the love of sin and 
wickedness to the love of God and holiness. The believer has been 
“created anew in Christ Jesus.” With him, in an important sense, “old 
things are passed away, and all things are become new.” A new prin- 
ciple—a principle of life and holiness—is implanted within his soul. 
He lives, breathes, and moves within a new atmosphere. He sees God 
now, not as an angry, frowning Judge, but as a loving, a compassionate 
Father. His heart, which was “ enmity against God, not subject to the 
law uf God,” now “cries out for the living God” in holy rapture, exclaim- 
ing: “Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth 
that. I desire beside thee.” He has lost his desire to frequent the haunts 
of sin, and now he delights in the service of the sanctuary—the wor 
ship of God and the ways of righteousness and peace. He looks upon 
the people and the service of God, not with aversion, but with delight. 
Once he delighted in “the works of the flesh.” “Adultery, fornica- 
tion, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witcheraft, hatred, variance, 
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunk- 
enness, revelings, and such like”—these were once the tyrants of his 
soul, but now, in his heart and life, he exhibits “the fruit of the Spirit.” 
“Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, 
temperance ”—these are the graces that fill his heart and adorn his life. 

2. Any one, by examining the writings of the early Christian apol- 
ogists, when defending the character of the persecuted Christians, will 
see that their testimony on this subject accords with that of the apos- 
Hes. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen Lactantius, and 


Qh. xx.) EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 72] 


others, are very explicit in their accounts of the holy and self-sacrifice: 
ing lives of the Christians. These direct testimonies of the Christian 
apologists were not disputed by their learned pagan opponents, which is 
sufficient evidence that their truth could not be safely denied. Indeed, 
some of them, as may be seen from the famous letter of Pliny to Tra- 
jan, already quoted, fully admitted the good moral character of Chris- 
tians. 

And we may confidently appeal to the observation of any candid 
person in Christian lands to testify to the reforming moral influence of 
Christianity. It is “known and read of all men” that thousands, in 
nearly all parts of Christendom, have been found by the gospel wicked, 
profane, profligate, malicious, lewd, drunken, or abandoned sinners, and 
been suddenly transformed into quiet, peaceable, sober, industrious, up- 
cight, and respectable citizens. Now, we ask, is there no argument in 
these facts? Are we to be told that a base, unprincipled impostor in- 
vented a religion more powerful in reforming the hearts and lives of 
the vicious than all the deep-studied theories, and learned lectures, and 
volumes of philosophers and sages? Are we to be required to believe 
that a system more influential in converting mankind from the practice 
of vice to the practice of virtue than all other schemes ever known to 
the world is a vile imposture, a record of profanity and lies? This ab- 
surd position must be occupied by the infidel, while he persists in reject- 
ing Christianity; and we must allow him to choose his own position, 
however unreasonable, absurd, or inconsistent it may be in its character 
or ruinous in its consequences. 

II. We next look at the influence of Christianity upon the moral con- 
dition of NATIONS AND COMMUNITIES. 

It is only necessary for any intelligent eye to glance over the princi- 
pal nations of the world to see the striking contrast in intelligence, 
morals, refinement, and all that can ennoble or render a people pros- 
perous and happy between Christian nations and all others, whether 
pagan or Mohammedan. In Christian countries the light of civiliza- 
tion shines conspicuously, while throughout pagan and Mohammedan 
States the clouds of ignorance and superstition, to an appalling degree, 
rest upon the people. Liberty, equality, intelligence, science, good 
order, industry, refinement, benevolence, and virtue, are peculiar char- 
acteristics of Christian lands; but, on the other hand, where the Chris- 
tian religion is unknown, barbarism, despotism, superstition, vileness, 
wretchedness, misery, and degradation, generally prevail. 

Among numerous other instances that might be cited, look at the 
wonderful change effected by the gospel, in the course of only a few 


46 


(22 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. ¥ 


years, in the condition of the lately benighted inhabitants of Green 
land and of the Southern Pacific islands. But we need not dwell upon 
these facts; they stand publicly authenticated before the world, and 
appeal to every skeptic to look upon the effects of Christianity, and 
read in these facts the deep impress of the divinity of its origin. 

Ill. Hitherto we have only spoken of the effects of Christianity, as 
they are outwardly visible, serving as evidence of the reality and ex- 
cellence of religion, founded on what we witness in others. But we 
now call attention to another species of evidence which is internal in 
two senses of the word—as the schoolmen would say, both objectively and 
subjectively ; that is, both in reference to the source or influence whence 
the evidence is derived and to the recipient by whom it is recognized. 
By this we mean that INTERNAL CONVICTION produced in the mind, 
conscience, or heart of the individual, resulting from the gospel through the 
influence of the Holy Spirit. 

This evidence is referred to in the Scri ptures as existing in two dis- 
tinct stages or degrees. First, as connected with conviction in the heart 
or conscience of the sinner. This is implied in these words of St. Paul: 
“But by manifestation of the truth, commending ourselves to every 
man’s conscience in the sight of God.” Here the gospel, as presented 
by the apostles, is seen to carry to the conscience, even of the sinner, a 
degree of conviction that it is true. 

The second division of this kind of evidence is what is termed the 
witness of the Spirit, which it is the privilege of every Christian to pos- 
sess, This is spoken of by St. Paul in these words: “'The Spirit itself 
beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God.” It is 
also promised by our Saviour in these words: “If any man will do his 
will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I 
speak of myself.” That is, on the condition of obeying the gospel, we 
are promised the knowledge of its truth. 

1. We first notice that division of this species of evidence connected 
with conviction. 

Within the great deep of our internal, spiritual nature, there lives a 
principle or faculty—call it conscience, the moral sense, God within us, 
or what we please—by which we can perceive a distinction between 
right and wrong, and gain an impression of the truth or falsehood of 
things set before the mind. That God, who made us, and who is the 
author of all our powers, can shine upon the penetralia of our internal 
nature, and cause us to apprehend truths addressed to our conscience as 
easily as he can send us the light of the sun to reveal to us through the 
eye the truths of nature about us, is a nosition too obvious to be doubted 


Ch. xx.] EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 72a 


Let any one discourse to us of the laws and operations of mind, or 
of the internal emotions by which we have been often influenced, and 
we may frequently feel as firm a conviction of the truth of the things 
thus communicated as it is possible for us to have of any fact we ever 
witnessed. And this conviction may not be the result of any process 
of ratiocination performed by the mind at the time, but may rise as 
spontaneously as the emotion of pleasure when we unexpectedly meet 
a much-loved friend. We may not be able fully to explain, or even to 
comprehend, the philosophy of this phenomenon, but of the truth of 
the fact we can have no doubt. We know that within the arcana of 
our inner nature there exists a something that receives, appropriates, ap- 
proves, and confirms certain truths the moment they enter the mind. 
‘Phere is a light within us which often possesses such affinity for the 
light received from without, that no sooner do the rays of the two lights 
come to a focus on the same object than their perfect accordance is seen 
by the mind; and the testimony of the one is confirmed by that of the 
other. The voice from without is echoed in unison by the voice from 
within; in other words, the truth of revelation, entering the penetralia 
within us, finds its attestation in the bosom of the recipient. Thus it is 
that the divine word, sounding in the ear of the sinner, becomes a “ dis- 
cerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart,” and so probes the con- 
scfence, and lays bare the hitherto hidden anatomy of the soul, that the 
smner is made to feel and to know that he has been listening to the 
voice of truth from on high. As the tribute-paying Jew, when he saw 
upon the coin the image and superscription of Cesar, knew to whom 
he owed political allegiance, even so the sinner, when he reads or hears 
the word of revelation, often perceives upon that word the signature of 
God so intelligibly impressed that he cannot doubt the divine source 
from whence it came. 

This evidence of the truth of Christianity, connected with conviction 
for sin, is what every sinner throughout Christian lands, to a greater or 
less extent, has received. He may deny the fact of this conviction, 
and spurn the word, and resist the Spirit that produced it; but yet it 
is true that he has heard the voice of God speaking to his inner nature, 
and the voice of conscience echoed the words back to his soul, assuring 
him that the voice which had spoken came from heaven. Here, then, is 
an evidence of the truth of Christianity, resulting from the experience 
of every man who has ever heard the gospel, and been convinced by 
the testimony of his own conscience, that the message was from God. 
But this kind of evidence is only of force with him who receives it. 
He cannot impart it to others so as to render it intelligible and effica 


724 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [P. ui. B. 3 


cious in regard to them. At the moment when this evidence is mani 
fested to his heart, it is vivid and impressive, often causing the sinner tc 
tremble; but if he trifles with the voice that addresses him, saying 
“Go thy way for this time,” the insulted Spirit may leave him to harden 
and perish in his sins; and the traces of this evidence may become so 
dim as almost entirely to fade from his memory. 

We now inquire: Can that gospel be a human invention which finds 
a confirming witness of its truth in every soul of man? Can that voice 
be a deceptive illusion which finds an echo in the conscience of every 
sinner? Has the God of nature placed in the bosom of all his ac- 
countable creatures a fallacious witness only to deceive and mislead 
them? Can that system which is a profane and wicked imposture 
“commend itself to every man’s conscience in the sight of God”? 
There is in the Bible a tone of divine authority, an awful solemnity, a 
sacred and heavenly unction, which to every conscience, not entirely 
obdurated by sin, attests the divinity of its origin. Yet infidelity may 
laugh it to scorn. The incorrigible sinner may so inure himself to the 
impious crime of deriding this word, which his own conscience once bore 
him witness was the word of God, that he shall never again be im- 
pressed with its sacredness or truth till before the judgment-seat of 
Christ its unfolded pages shall flash conviction upon his soul. Never- 
theless it is true, that as reason bears Witness to all who impartially 
peruse the pages of nature, that all material things were created by the 
infinitely wise and beneficent God, even so does the conscience within 
the breast of all who, in a docile spirit and with a candid mind, read 
or hear the gospel of Christ bear witness that it is in truth the voice of 
God speaking to us from heayen by his Son. 

But this voice of God, speaking, whether to saint or sinner, by his 
Son through the influence of the Spirit, is not to be understood as re 
vealing any new truths not embraced in the Bible. The Spirit shines 
upon the sinner’s heart, and “opens his understanding,” but it is “that 
he may understand the Scriptures.” The Spirit rends the vail and 
opens his eyes, but it is that he may “behold wondrous things cut of 
the divine law.” 

2. There is one more division of the experimental evidence to which 
we now call attention: the indwelling witness of the Holy Spirit in the 
heart of the Christian. 

Tt would be entirely aside from our purpose here, and irrelevant to 
our present argument, to enter upon the mooted question as to the 
manner in which the influence of the Spirit is imparted. All with 
which we are at present concerned is the fact that the Spirit is prom. 


bh. xx. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 726 


ised to the Christian, not only to certify his adoption as a child of Gov, 
but also to assure him of the truth of the Christian doctrine. Both 
these points are abundantly established in the Scriptures we have 
quoted. Other texts to the same effect might be adduced, but we deem 
it unnecessary to delay farther to prove a position which we think will 
not be disputed. 

The argument here proposed is this: Christ has promised that all 
who do his will shall know of the truth of his doctrine, and the apos- 
tle teaches that the Spirit testifies to every Christian the fact of his 
adoption ; hence it follows, as Christ cannot fail in his promise, and as 
the apostle has taught the truth, that every Christian has the most in- 
dubitable evidence that Christianity, is true. This evidence has the ac- 
vantage over both the external evidence and every other species of the 
internal evidence. Like the best wine kept for the last of the feast, 
this is the last, the crowning evidence which God imparts of the truth of 
his religion. Other evidence is abundant and satisfactory, sufficient to 
remove all reasonable doubt, but this is absolutely infallible. Other 
evidence is dependent on the capacity, integrity, and depositions, of fal- 
lible men, and the deductions of our fallible reason; but here is evi- 
dence, passing through no fallible channel, having no fallible prop for 
its support, dependent on no fallible reasoning for its validity. Indeed, 
so direct, all-conclusive, and infallibly certain, is this evidence, that it 
can suffer no diminution of its strength and efficacy from the ignorance, 
the weakness, the blunders, or the fallibility, of him to whom it is given. 
It depends entirely upon an infallible source, not only as a guarantee 
that it shall be properly set forth in all its appropriate and convincing 
efficacy, but that it shall be correctly understood, duly apprehended, 
and fuily relied upon, by all to whom it is given. All this is pledged 
by Him who is infallible, and whose every promise, his attributes assure 
us, he certainly will fulfill. Furthermore, this evidence, unlike every 
other species of evidence, is alike conclusive and satisfactory to all to 
whom it is given, to whatever class they may belong. ‘To the rich and 
the poor, to the high and the low, to the ignorant and the learned, to the 
patrician and the plebeian, to the sage and the savage, to all, it is alike 
intelligible and satisfactory. It removes from all the last vestige of 
doubt, and settles and confirms them in the full assurance that their 
faith rests not “in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 

This evidence, it is true, is not vouchsafed to all men indiserimi- 
nately. It is the property of the Christian alone; and, in the natn~s 
of things, none else can possess it. It results from an experience wht.h 
uone can realize without becoming a Christian. To impart such ev: 


726 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.:i. B.@ 


dence as this to the sinner might infringe upon his free agency, and 
make him a Christian without consulting his will, contrary to the gos: 
pel-plan. But while this evidence is restricted to the Christian alone, 
and cannot be so imparted by him to others as to enable them tu real- 
ize its convincing power, it is yet, to his own mind, more convincing 
and satisfactory than all other evidence taken together. And to vast 
numbers of the masses of the common, uneducated people, the exper: 
mental evidence, in its two branches, as pertaining to the sinner and the 
Christian, is all that they possess, or are capable of comprehending. 

That the Christian religion is thus adapted to the circumstances of 
all classes of the human family, is another evidence that it originated 
in the infinite wisdom and goodness of God. He who made us, and 
who perfectly understands all our imbecilities, as he delights to do his 
needy creatures good, could not bestow upon us a religion that all 
might not be capable of receiving and enjoying. And as the larger 
portion of the human family are uneducated, and quite incapable of 
examining the historical and philosophical arguments founded on mir- 
acles and prophecy, how destitute would be their condition if they were 
left without any evidence of the truth of religion which their capacity 
and circumstances could reach! Without the experimental evidence, 
the Christian religion would lack one essential element of being adapted 
to “the poor;” and our Saviour specifies, as one proof of his Messiah- 
ship, the fact that “the poor have the gospel preached unto them.” 
Bearing along with it. the sanction of its own divinity, the gospel can 
visit the hovels of the poor and indigent, the unlettered outcasts from 
society, and even the untaught savages of the wilderness, and all it 
asks is the means of access to their inner nature, an interpreter who 
can convey its truths to their understanding, and can speak to them 
in a voice that will convince them that its credentials are from God. 
Thus, it can become unto all, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether Greeks 
or barbarians, “the power of God unto salvation to every one that 
believeth.” 

Again, this experimental evidence most decidedly deprives the skep- 
lic of every rational ground of objection to religion. It calls upon 
him to settle his every doubt by experimental demonstration. “Prove 
me, ... saith the Lord of hosts, . . . and I will pour you out a bless- 
ing Sit any man will do his will,” saith Jesus, “he shall know of 
the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” 

It was unreasonable in the Syrian captain to hesitate about washing 
in the waters of Jordan to be healed of his leprosy; and had the blind 
man, whe» er Saviour directed to “wash in the pool of Siloam,” 


Ch. xx.] EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 127 


refused ty comply with this command, he would have deserved to grope 
in darkness all his days. What, then, shall be thought of the proud 
and haughty skeptic who persists in urging his senseless cavils and oft- 
refuted arguments against Christianity, but will not consent to test the 
question by our Saviour’s experimental criterion? “Do my will,” saith 
Jesus, “and you shall know of the doctrine.” That is, submit to the 
requirements of the gospel, obey my commandments, and you shall 
lave evidence to convince you, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that 
my religion is divine. The yoke of Christ is easy, and his burden is 
light; and it is no hard condition for the sinner to be required to d¢ 
the will of Christ that he may test the truth of his doctrines. Let in- 
fidelity cease to deride that Saviour. whom she has never attempted to 
follow or obey, let her no longer scoff at that religion she has never 
proved, but let her meet the issue fairly, upon the arena of the experi- 
mental test, as Christianity proposes, or let her cease her ridicule and 
vituperation forever. 

3. Once more, we ask the attention to the argument for the truth of 
Christianity founded upon the testimony of Christians concerning their 
experience. Asa man born blind, though he cannot realize from expe- 
rience the distinction of colors, may, nevertheless, be satisfied on the 
testimony of others that such distinction exists; even so, though the 
Christian can never convey to the understanding of the sinner an ade- 
quate conception of the experimental evidence as realized in his own 
soul, yet he may exhibit such testimony concerning it as ought to “ con- 
vince the gainsayers” that he “has not followed a cunningly-devised 
fable.” St. Paul, when permitted to speak for himself, related the his- 
tory of his conversion; and the publication of that remarkable oceur- 
rence has doubtless been the means of convincing thousands of the 
truth of Christianity. The language of St. John is: “That which 
we have seen and heard, declare we unto you.” It cannot be ques- 
tioned that the sincerity and earnestness which have been exhibited by 
Christians in every age, in testifying “how great things the Nord has 
done for them,” have wielded a powerful influence in the conversion of 
unbelievers to the faith. What a wonderful array of evidence of this 
description has the Church, in every age, set before the world! Mul- 
tiplied thousands, under the most trying circumstances, have sealed the 
truth of their profession with their blood. A “noble army of martyrs” 
have shouted the praise of God amid the flames. Now, we demand: Is 
the testimony of all these Christians, as to the power and consolations 
of that religion which they experienced, of no avail? 

Let infidelity cease her cavils and quibbles, let her pause in her 


728 k~EMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. ii. B. 8 


career of ridicule and abuse, and come at once and prove, if she can, 
the falsehood of Christianity by the test of experience! Multitudes 
have realized by experience its saving power, and, were it possible for 
all other arguments on the subject to be forgotten, thousands would 
cling to Christian experience as the richest heritage of fallen humanity, 
imparting the greatest consolation in this life, and inspiring the bright- 
est hopes in reference to the next, 

Although this experimental evidence is unquestionably the most 
overwhelmingly convincing of any that can be obtained in this life, yet 
it has ever been repulsive to the feelings of the unrenewed soul. .n 
unsanctified human nature there is a principle of instinctive rebellion 
ugainst the spirituality of religion. Perhaps the ground of this is to be 
found mainly in the fact that “the natural man receiveth not the things 
of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ; neither can he 
know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” ‘To an unlettered 
peasant, who had never heard any thing of the science of astronomy, 
the fact that an eclipse of the sun can be calculated for centuries before 
it occurs, and the precise time of the phenomenon predicted, would per- 
haps be as mysterious and as repugnant to his faith as are the spiritual 
things of religion to the unbelieving heart. But let that peasant be 
regularly instructed in the principles of mathematical and astronomi- 
cal science, leading him, step by step, from the foundation-axioms up 
to the abstruse calculations of astronomy, and the mystery will be dis- 
pelled, and he will see that it all must be true, and cannot be other- 
wise. Even so in religion there is a commencement, a progression, and 
« maturity. We can see no good reason why those who are strangers 
to the experimental evidence of Christianity should reject that evidence 
upon the testimony of Christians, while they rely confidently on the 
testimony of philosophers and astronomers, in reference to experiments 
and cu.tulations as mysterious and incomprehensible to them as can be 
the things of religion. If all good astronomers agree in testifying that 
vclipses can be calculated with accuracy, even so all good Christians 
agree in affirming that “he that believeth on the Son of God hath the 
witness in himself,” 

If it be said that we have much collateral testimony to satisfy us 
that the statements of philosophers and astronomers, in reference to 
their experiments and calculations, are true; even so, we demand, is 
there not abundant evidence, beside the mere affirmation of Christians, 
confirming the truth of their testimony in relation to their Christian 
experience? Is there not all the evidence of this kind that the nature 
af the subject admits? Would not similar testimonv. derived from the 


Ch. xx.] EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 729 


same witnesses, convince any rational mind of the truth of any facts 
in reference to the things of this world? And if so, why should we 
adopt a new mode of reasoning whenever we pass from questions of 
philosophy or experimental facts pertaining to temporal affairs, to the 
religious experience of the same persons? Is skepticism so pressed and 
crippled in her crusade against experimental religion that, whenever 
that subject is brought upon the arena, she is driven, in order to keep 
her principles in countenance, to ignore all her ordinary rules of logie, 
and resort to a new method of argumentation, and one never admitted 
or thought of except when the object is to discredit the claims of ex- 
perimental religion? Were not this the case, there is not a rational 
mind beneath the sun that could for a moment resist the sweeping tide 
of testimony by which the reality of experimental Christianity has 
been confirmed. 

Passing by the millions of sincere Christians who, in every age of the 
gospel dispensation, in the humble walks of life, have professed to have 
experienced the power of this religion in their hearts, and have exult- 
antly proclaimed the reality of its consolations and hopes—this experi- 
mental religion has numbered among its advocates many of the bright- 
est luminaries in the galaxy of learning and science. Men of the loft- 
iest genius and talent, and of the most inestimable probity and moral 
worth; for example, Lord Chief-Justice Hale, Pascal, Newton, Boyle, 
Locke, Addison, Boerhaave, Lord Littleton, Baron Haller, Sir William 
- Jones, and James Beattie—all men of giant intellect and of world-re- 
nowned literary fame; these have all professed with their lips this ex- 
perimental Christianity, and exhibited its fruits in their lives. In ref: 
erence to any statement of historic fact which they had witnessed, or 
any scientific experiment they had tried, their testimony would be un- 
doubted before any court of law or college of philosophy on earth. 
Why, then, should their statements as to their experience of Chris- 
tianity, and the inspoken witness of God to their hearts that the doe- 
trine of Christ is of God, be not only discredited but stigmatized and 
ridiculed as a fanatical delusion ? 

Can infidelity boast of such a host of worthies among her adherents 
tw palliate, if possible, her inconsistency in rejecting such testimony ? 
What has been the moral standing of her most illustrious apostles ? 
As observed by Watson: “ They show in their own characters the effect 
of their unbelief, and probably the chief cause of it. Blount committed 
suicide, because he was prevented from an incestuous marriage; Tyndal 
was notoriously infamous; Hobbes changed his principles with his 
interests; Morgan continued to profess Christianity while he wrote 


730 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ii. B. 3 


against it; the moral character of Voltaire was mean and detestable , 
Bolingbroke was a rake and a flagitious politician ; Collins and Shafies: 
bury qualified themselves for civil offices by receiving the sacrament, 
whilst they were endeavoring to prove the religion of which it is a sol- 
emn expression of belief, a mere imposture; Hume was revengeful, 
disgustingly vain, and an advocate of adultery and self-murder; Paine 
was the slave of low and degrading habits; Rousseau an abandoned 
sensualist, and guilty of the basest actions, which he scruples not to 
state and palliate.” Are we to be called upon to enroll ourselves as 
disciples of these men, who have added to the sophistry and inconsist- 
ency of their reasoning, as a comment on the tendency of their princi- 
ples, the flagitiousness of their lives?) N o, we will cling to the Bible as 
our light and our salvation, as our only solid ground of comfort and 
hope in a world of sorrow and affliction. We will enroll our names 
with the extended list of saints and martyrs who, “in all time of their 
affliction,” have derived solace and comfort from the inspired pages of 
the word of life. Let infidelity oppose and deride, ridicule and scoff_— 
let all the ingenuity and malice of skeptics and demons combine to con- 
demn or stigmatize, to disprove or destroy—the revelation of God to 
man, their counsel shall be frustrated, their efforts shall prove fruitless, 
and their labor shall perish ; but the Bible, more indestructible than 
monuments of marble, more enduring than the hills, shall still remain! 
It is the word of God, “which liveth and abideth forever.”  “ Blessed 
is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book!" 


“Were all the sea one chrysolite, 
And all this earth one golden ball, 
And diamonds all the stars of night, 
This precious book were worth them all.” 


Ch. xx.} 


EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. 


731 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XX. 


Question 1 What species of evidence is 
the most convincing to the mass of 
common people? 

2. In what three divisions has the ar- 
gument from experience been pre- 
sented ? 

What is the argument founded upon 
the transforming influence of Chris- 
tianity upon the moral character of 
individuals? 

4. What is the influence of Christianity 
upon the moral condition of nations 
and communities, and how is its di- 
vinity thereby shown? 

5. What evidence is that referred to 
which is internal in two senses? 

$ In what two stages is this evidence 
spoken of in Scripture? 


7. What is the nature cf this evidence 
as connected with conviction? 

8. What is the last division of experi- 
mental evidence referred to? 

9. For what double purpose is the 
Spirit promised to the Christian? 

10. Wherein consists the superiority of 
this to every other class ‘of testi- 
mony ? 

11. What class of persons can realize 
the force of this evidence? 


12. How may it be shown that this ex- 


perimental evidence deprives the 
skeptic of every rational ground of 
objection to religion? 

13. How can we account for the general 
prejudice of unbelievers against the 
experimental evidence c. religion? 


PART f11.—THE MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY, 


BOOK I.—INTRODUCTORY PRINCIPLES. 


CHAPTER I. 


CONNECTION BETWEEN MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND DIVINE REVEr+A 
TION — THE MANNER IN WHICH MORALS ARE TAUGHT IN THE 
SCRIPTURES. . 


I. REVELATION THE SOURCE OF CHRISTIAN MORALS. 

Not only in pagan countries, but even in Christian lands, systems of 
morals have been devised and published with little or no reference to the 
teachings of the Bible upon that subject. That Socrates, Plato, Seneca, 
and others, in the most enlightened age of Grecian and Roman learn- 
ing, should plod their way amid the abstruse intricacies of ethical 
science as best they could, guided only by the light of nature and the 
dim reflections of tradition, is all that could be expected of benighted 
heathens. But that men of science, upon whose minds the beams of 
revelation have shone, should exhibit to the world systems upon this 
subject derived mainly from the light of nature, referring to the sacred 
Scriptures only as a source of confirmatory evidence, is marvelous in 
the extreme. With those who admit the truth of revelation, the Bible 
is the great source of information upon this as well as upon all other 
questions encompassed by its teachings. Since God has furnished in 
his word a revelation of “the whole duty of man,” we may with as 
much propriety attempt to work out from the quarry of nature the plan 
of salvation asa system of morals. Revelation is as truly the standard 
upon the one subject as the other, and we cannot directly or indirectly 
ignore the fact, without dishonoring the Christian name. But while the 
Bible is the highest authority upon this subject—indeed, the only infal- 

(733) 


734 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Pic Bal 


ible guide—the teachings of nature, so far as they extend or can be 
understood by us, may be useful as tending to confirm and illustrate the 
word of revelation. So far as human reason can penetrate into the 
rationale of moral precept, it ought to be unhesitatingly employed, and 
may contribute to our more enlightened perception of the excellency 
apd value of revealed truth; yet it should not be forgotten that while, 
in reference to some duties, no reason of their propriety can be seen 
except the divine command, in all these reasons are but imperfectly 
urderswod, and, at best, do not furnish the ground of obligation—this 
rests solely on the divine command. 

In regard to the pagan philosophers of antiquity, although their views 
concerning God and the principles of morals were exceedingly errone- 
ous and degrading, yet it must be admitted that some of them at times 
uttered some sublime and noble sentiments upon these topics. But that 
their most consistent and elevated thoughts upon these themes resulted 
from the efforts of their own unassisted reason, we have no evidence for 
believing; on the contrary, we have very satisfactory proof that for all 
their most valuable teachings, both in reference to the one supreme God 
and the nature of moral rectitude, they were indebted to the light of 
revelation, either reflected from tradition or from the Jewish Scriptures, 
whose influence, direct or indirect, was, to some extent, diffused among 
them. Hence we conclude that human reason, unaided by revelation, 
so far as evinced by the efforts of ancient pagan philosophy, was not 
only unable, “ by searching to find out God,” but was too feeble to dis- 
cover the foundation principles, much less to shape a correct system, of 
moral philosophy. 

To all who are acquainted with the literature of pagan philosophers 
and deistical writers, it is notorious that they have greatly improved 
since the commencement of the Christian era. They have not only 
enlarged the circle of matters embraced in their philosophy, but they 
have more enlightened views concerning the principles of virtue and 
vice, much clearer and less erroneous conceptions of the distinctions 
between right and wrong, than are found in the writings of the more 
ancient pagan or deistical authors. Whence this superior light pos- 
sessed by modern rejecters of revelation, when compared with more 
ancient pagan philosophers, has originated, is no difficult problem to 
solve. It has not resulted either from superior intellect, greater indus- 
tvy, or higher attainments in general literature, on the part of the 
moderns, but from the fact that they have lived in an age subsequent 
tu the birth of Jesus, and been enlightened by the beams of his 
gospel 


Ch. 1.) MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND REVELATION, 135 


That unbelievers in revelation should write upon moral philosophy, 
enriching their pages with many sublime thoughts and noble sentiments 
pilfered from revelation, and which could have been derived from no 
other source, making no acknowledgment of their indebtedness to reve- 
lation, is a disingenuousness not inconsistent with the general character- 
istics of skepticism; but that professed believers in Christianity, and 
even eminent divines, should have persisted so long in “ seeking fcr the 
living among the dead,” attempting to rear the temple of moral phi- 
losophy, using only the tools furnished by the cabinet of nature and the 
materials derived from her magazines, is a fact marvelously unaccount- 
able and much to be lamented. 

What good apology can be offered, or what reasonable palliation can 
be pleaded, for this real though unintentional disrespect for revelation 
on the part of many of our able and learned divines? How can 
they justify themselves for endeavoring to walk by the twilight of na- 
ture when they had access to the meridian sunlight of the gospel, by 
which they might have guided their every step? Because nature may 
serve as a useful handmaid to revelation, contributing her feebler light 
as confirmatory evidence of truths more luminously set forth by the 
pages of revelation, are we therefore justifiable in exalting her to the 
foremost position as the presiding genius in the erection of the temple 
of moral philosophy? 

Let us inquire what nature or unassisted human reason can do, and 
what she cannot do, in connection with moral philosophy. 

Natural religion, or human reason, alone may impart an imperfect 
idea of the distinction between right and wrong, but she can draw no 
fixed and intelligible line between them, nor exhibit any authoritative 
ground of obligation to do what is right and to refrain from doing what 
is wrong. It is evident that the code of morals clearly discoverable by 
human reason is exceedingly limited and imperfect; and even in that 
limited extent to which it may conduct us, its principles would ever be 
left resting on a basis of uncertainty. Being the result of human 
reason, they would be differently understood by different minds; and if 
they were understood and interpreted alike by all, they would even 
then lack that sanction of authority which is necessary to give them the 
character of law, and render them an obligatory rule of life. 

Some of the principles of morality, as taught in revelation, come 
under the head of positive precepts—that is, they contain nothing in 
themselves, discoverable by human reason, rendering what they enjoin 
right or proper, except the command of God. Other principles of 
Bible morality come under the head of moral precepts (as they are 


736 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. tt. Bok 


called, for the sake of distinction), or such as enjoin duties the propri- 
ety or reason of which may, to some extent, be discovered by human 
reason. For illustration, the interdiction of the fruit of “the tree of 
knowledge of good and evil” is styled a positive precept, because we 
can see no propriety in the requirement except what results from the 
fact that it has been commanded: yet, when once a duty under this 
head has been commanded, it is, in strictness of speech, as really a 
moral duty as any other, and we are under equal obligations to obey it. 
Our obligations to obey God result not from the fact that we perceive 
the propriety of the duty in question, but solely from the right of God 
to command, and the fact that the command has been issued. 

In regard, then, to duties embraced under the head of positive pre- 
cepts, according to the above definitions, the light of nature can render 
us no aid, and human reason is utterly powerless. But in reference to 
those duties embraced under the head of moral precepts, when once 
they have been revealed and enjoined, the reason and propriety of some 
of them may be partially discovered by the light of nature; but even 
in those cases we can have no evidence that we comprehend fully all 
the reasons existing in the Divine Mind on which those duties are 
founded. For when we admit, as we are bound to do, that God has 
commanded some duties, no reason for which can be perceived by us 
beyond the fact of the command, yet, as God can do nothing without a 
wise and sufficient reason, we are compelled to believe that, even in all 
such cases, there exist in the Divine Mind adequate reasons for his com- 
mands; but they are beyond the reach of our capacity. 

Hence, upon the same principle of reasoning, when God issues a 
command, some of the reasons of which we may perceive, we know not 
what farther reasons may still lie beyond our reach. If, in some cases, 
we know that reasons exist when we can perceive none, the fact that in 
other cases we perceive some reasons, can be no evidence against the 
existence of others yet hidden from our view. 

It appears clear to us that, with the Christian philosopher, the light 
of nature has no part in furnishing the basis or the criterion of morals, 
or in setting forth the ground of our obligation. It is utterly beyond 
her province to devise and frame a system of moral philosophy for a 
man who holds in his hand a Bible which he believes “contains all 
things necessary for life and godliness,” and may “thoroughly furnish 
him unto every good word and work.” 

All-that_nature or mere _human_reason_can_do, is this: 1. She may 


aid us in the interpretation of Scripture, that we may rightly under. 


stand our dutv as set forth in revelation. 2. She mavy_render_her_cor- 


Ch. iJ MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND ROVELATION. 737 


roborative testimony, so faras-herlight-can_penetrate,-in-regard tothe 
reasonableness and propriety of duties as portrayed in the revealed will 
_of God. In this way she may be a useful handmaid of revelation, 
accompanying the Christian while he is studying his system of morals 
as taught in the Bible, and, in all cases in which she is capable, super- 
adding to the divine revealments of Heaven the confirmatory evidence 
of her fecbler voice ; thus increasing the confidence and rendering more 
pleasing the duties of the Christian. 
Nature alone can_no-more-furnish—for-the-Christian_his_system-of 
morals than_his system of doctrines. It is certainly very strangely in- 
consistent for us to appeal to the Bible as our standard and guide, 
while on the subject of doctrines, and then, as soon as we approach the 
question of morals, to forget that Moses and the prophets, and Christ 
and his apostles, have ever spoken upon the subject; and appeal first 
to nature and reason, and pretend to educe from them, as materials of 
their own furnishing, principles which they never knew except as they 
learned them from the Bible, and thus mold and shape a system of 
morals, giving the credit for its formation to nature and reason, when 
it does not, in truth, embrace a single important principle that has not 
been derived from revelation. 
_Learned_pagans, independent. of revelation, never _knew the distinc 
tion between virtue and_vice—between_rightand wrong. Infidels may 
be allowed to embody the ethics of St. John and the divine philosophy 
of Jesus in their treatises, and call all their stolen materials the philos- 
ophy of nature; but let not Christian moralists “worship and serve the 
creature more than the Creator”! Let them not vie with infidelity, 
however unintentionally, in crowning the goddess of reason with the 
glory belonging to the God of the Bible! Let them cease all pretention 
to the formation of a system of morals from the teachings of nature! 
Let them start with the Bible, be guided by the Bible, and only employ 
the lesser light of nature as subsidiary and tributary to the more ]umi- 
nous beams of the great Sun of revelation! 
If_we thus restrict the province of natural religion to its legitimate 
sphere, it may serve a valuable purpose in connection with moral phi- 
_losophy. It may furnish us additional confirmation of our faith in the 

principles of morality, as developed in the Bible, as well as useful illus- 
sublime perfection—of that 
divinely - revealed system of Christian morals. But if we persist in 
going to nature’s garden in quest of fruit which can only be found in 
the fields of divine revelation, we thereby must, to some extent, how 
ever remote it may be from our design, bring discredit upon that gle 

47 


T3E ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 1 


rious system of morality unfolded in the teachings of Christ and his 
aposties. If the gospel of Christ had failed to embody “the whole 
duty of man,” either in specific precepts or general principles, the 
absurdity of Christian divines pretending to found systems of moral 
philosophy mainly on natural religion would not be so glaring. But, 
we demand, What duty is not comprised in the New Testament, either 
specifically or in a general principle? and where, in all the treatises of 
mere human philosophy, can be found principles so pure, so heavenly, 
so free from error, so absolutely perfect, and set forth in language so 
unambiguous, so simple, so comprehensive, so sublime? Then “to the 
law and to the testimony” we should make our appeal. > 

Having shown that divine revelation is the only proper and adequate 
source from which the Christian must derive his system of morals, we 
how proceed to inquire concerning— 

Il. THe MANNER IN WHICH MORALS ARE TAUGHT IN THE Scrip- 
TURES. 

1. The first question to be here considered is this: Are the morals of 
Christianity to be deduced solely from the New Testament, or should 
the Old Testament writings also be consulted, as possessing to any extent 
divine authority on the subject? 

It requires but a cursory examination of the question to perceive that 
large portions of the Old Testament are far less essential to the Chris- 
tian than the teachings of the New Testament, whether doctrines or 
duties be the matter of inquiry. Yet this admission will by no means 
justify the position taken by some claiming the Christian name—that 
the Old Testament, under the Christian dispensation, is mainly an anti- 
quated volume, useful as an instructive history of the past, but that its 
precepts of murality possess no divine authority, except so far as they 
have been formally reénacted in the New Testament. 

Our first objection to_thisposition is, that it is entirely gratuitous, 
having no authority from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. 
They neverintimated that the Jewish Scriptures had been superseded 
_or annulled by the gospel, but everywhere spoke of them with the 
deepest reverence as the authoritative word of God. rs 

Next, this position seems inconsistent with the principles of reason, 
as applicable to the question. It is an admitted principle in jurispru- 
dence, that a law is only binding when enacted by a power possessing 
authority in the premises, but that, when thus enacted without any lim- 
iting clause showing that at a given period, or under certain circum- 
stauces, it shall cease to be a law, it must remain in force till the same 
power that enacted it, or another power of equal authority, shall for 


Ch. i., MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND REVELATION, 739 


mal'y repeal it. Now, as the Old Testament is the acknowledged word 
of God, given by “holy men of God, who spake as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost,” without any intimation that its authority was ever 
to cease or be diminished, it necessarily follows that it is still in force 
except so far as it may be clearly shown from the teachings of Christ 
and his apostles that it has been superseded, has received its complete ful- 
fillment, or is inapplicable. 

The extent to which the precepts of the Old Testament are applicable 
to Christians under the gospel, is rendered very clear by the teachings 
of Christ and his apostles. ‘To say that no portion of the Mosaic law 
is binding upon Christians, except what has been formally reénacted, 
would not only be incorrect, according to our reasoning as above, but 
it would be contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. Our Sav- 
iour and his apostles always referred to the Jewish Scriptures as of 
binding authority, except such portions as have received their complete 
fulfillment under the gospel, as being types or shadows of better 
things to come, and such as were merely ceremonial or political, and 
only applicable to the Mosaic economy and Jewish polity while they 
continued. Therefore the correct rule on the subject is, that the Old 
Testament teachings, embracing the writings of Moses and the prophets, 
are still in force, so far as they can apply to Christians under the gospel, 
except so far as they have been repealed or plainly set aside by the 
teachings and example of Christ and his apostles. 

It is very plain, therefore, that the types and shadows under the law 
have been superseded by the coming of the great Antitype, and the 
introduction of the substance, or “better things,” under the gospel. 
But as to the moral law of Moses, the substance of which was compre- 
hensively embraced in the Decalogue, so far from it being superseded 
by the gospel, it has been abundantly referred to by the Saviour and his 
apostles—not as being abrogated by the gospel, nor yet as having been 
formally reénacted, but as still existing, and of binding authority, with- 
out any reénactment. In his Sermon on the Mount, in direct reference 
to the law of Moses, our Saviour says: “Think not that Iam come to 
destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to ful- 
fill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot o1 
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Who- 
soever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall 
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven ; 
but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great 
in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. vy. 17-19. That this passage had 
reference to the whole Mosaic law, embracing its sacrificial, ceremonial 


740 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 1 


and moral divisions, is very manifest. Even the types, the sacrifices, 
and the ceremonies, he came not to destroy—not to overturn or frus- 
trate their design or import—not to pervert their significancy or destroy 
their intended connection with the great spiritual things in the gospel, 
of which they were the shadows—but “to fulfill.” And it is this cere- 
monial law, doubtless, to which he refers, when he says: “One jot or 
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” But 
it is equally evident that, when he pronounces condemnation on him 
who “shall break one of these least commandments,” and expresses his 
approval of him who “shall do and teach them,” he refers to the Dec- 
alogue. The plain inference therefore is, that this great moral code is 
in force under the gospel. As no part of the law was to pass till it 
should be fulfilled, and as the moral law is still as susceptible of being 
fulfilled under the gospel as it was in the days of Moses, it still must 
remain alike applicable to all ages, all countries, and all dispensa 
tions. 

Again, in his conversation with the rich young nobleman who in- 
quired what he must “do to mherit eternal life,” our Saviour fully ree- 
ognizes the authority of the moral law of Moses. He does not intimate 
that that law was abrogated, but directs the young man to “the com- 
mandments;” and, on being asked “which,” the Saviour proceeded to 
quote several of them, as recorded in the Decalogue, giving evidence 
that he referred to the Ten Commandments written by “the finger of 
God” upon the tables of stone. 

So likewise St. Paul, after having set forth the doctrine of “jJustifica- 
tion by faith,” lest any should suppose he undervalued the moral law 
of Moses, exclaims: “Do we then make void the law through faith? 
God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” 

Farther, there is not a single precept of the Decalogue which is not 
either expressly quoted by Christ or his apostles as of binding authority 
or its substance explicitly enjoined. And when our Saviour was interro- 
gated by a lawyer, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” 
he did not reply that he had come to abrogate those commandments, but 
proceeded to give them his most unqualified sanction, by embodying the 
substance of the two tables in two great com.mandments, “Jesus said 
unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great 
commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law 
and the prophets.” It is impossible to conceive of a more full and 
thorough indorsement of the entire moral code of the Old Testament 


Ch. i] MORAL PHILOSOPHY AND REVELATION. 741 


than is furnished in these words of our Saviour. He does not quote 
the exact language of the Old Testament precepts, but he does what is 
better—he professedly gives the substance of “all the law and the proph 
ets,” and that, too, in language more comprehensive and of a deeper 
and more spiritual import. This gives to the Decalogue a higher 
sanction than if he had formally reénacted each one of the Ten Com- 
mandments. It not only substantially reénacts them, recognizing their 
binding authority, but it enlarges their application, extending them not 
only to the actions of the life, but to the thoughts and emotions of the 
heart. That our Saviour professedly embodied “all the law and the 
prophets” in these two great commandments cannot be disputed without 
flatly contradicting his own words; hence there is no escape from the 
conclusion, that he either failed to do what he professed to do, or he 
most expressly and fully sanctioned with his authority the entire 
moral law as taught by Moses and the prophets. Thus we conclude 
that the morals of Christianity as legitimately comprise the great moral 
precepts of Moses and the prophets recorded in the Old Testament, 
as they do the discourses of Christ and the teachings of his inspired 
apostles. 

The fact that morals are not exhibited in Scripture in the shape of 
a regular code, can be no valid ground of objection. Moral principles 
in the Bible, are often unfolded incidentally in connection with facts out 
of which they naturally grow; and this very circumstance, by connect- 
ing in the same view both the principle and its practical illustration, 
is calculated, not only to impart to the understanding a clearer percep- 
tion of the principle itself, but to impress it more vividly upon the 
memory. 

Again, it can be no real objection to the Bible, as the source of 
moral philosophy, that some Christian duties are not specifically named 
therein, and formally enjoined. Had a regular code of morals been 
set forth in Scripture minutely specifying every Christian duty that 
might arise under every variety of circumstance in life, throughout 
all countries and all ages, the volume must necessarily have been in- 
creased in size beyond all reasonable dimensiuns, so that “even the 
world itself could not contain the books that should be written.” The 
inconvenience that might seem to result from the fact that a large por- 
tion of the morals of Christianity is comprised in Scripture under gen- 
eral principles, is more than counterbalanced by the character of these 
general principles and the manner in which they are exhibited. As to 
the principles themselves, we have the firmest possible assurance that 
they contain truth without any mixture of error—truth that will remain 


742 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. b. 1 


the same in all ages and in all places. And these important principles 
are presented in language not only sublime and comprehensive, but 
remarkably plain —level to the comprehension of every accountable 
being. 

A peculiar beauty and force in our Saviour’s teachings were seen and 
felt in his use of the parable. By this method of instruction he often 
imparted, in a manner the most easy and captivating, the clearest con- 
ception of duties the most important. 

Another peculiar excellence of the teaching of morals, as exhibited 
in the Scriptures, is, the sanctions by which they are ever enforced. 
These heaven-taught duties are not urged by considerations of a 
worldly nature. Things of earth are comparatively forgotten or de- 
spised, and man is addressed as an accountable candidate for the retri- 
butions of eternity. He is admonished to “look not at the things which 
are seen, that are temporal; but at the things which are not seen, that 
are eternal.” And thus, with the promise of eternal life to encourage 
our hope, and the threatening of eternal death to alarm our fear, we 
are commanded to pursue “whatsoever things are true, whatsoever 
things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are 
pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good 
report.” 


Ch i] 


MORAL 


PHILOSOPHY AND REVELATION, 


748 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER I. 


Qtestion 1. With Christians, what is 


the great source of information on 

the subject of morals? 

. How has this fact been treated by 

many Christian writers on the sub- 

ject? 

. To what extent may the teachings of 
nature be here useful ? 

What were the attainments of pagan 
philosophers upon this subject? 

. How did they derive their most valu- 

able knowledge on the subject of 

morals? 


. Since the commencement of the Chris- 


tian era, what change is manifest in 

the views of pagan and deistical 

writers, and how is this to be ac- 
counted for? 

. In what way have many able Chris- 
tian writers exhibited apparent dis- 
respect for the Bible? 

What may natural religion teach on 
this subject? 


9. 


Do Christian morals come under the 
head of positive or moral precepts? 


. What aid can nature render us in 


reference to positive precepts? 


. What in reference to moral precepts? 
. May we suppose that a real reason 


exists for all God’s commands? 


. What are two things here named 


that human reason can do? 


. Does the Bible unfold completely the 


duty of man? 


. On this subject, is all our informa- 


tion to be taken from the New 
Testament? 


. How are we to know what portion 


of the Old Testament 7s and what 
is not now binding? 


. How can it be shown that the Deca- 


logue is now binding? 


. Are morals taught in the Bible in 


the form of a regular code? 


. Are all moral duties specificalls 


named in Scripture? 


744 ELXMENTS OF DIVINITY. (Poin. Bd 


CHAPTER II. 


PHILOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED—THE NATURE OF RECTITUDE-- 
THE GROUND OF MORAL OBLIGATION. 


Locke’s philosophy, called Sensationalism, and the more modern op- 
posing system called Tranecendentalism, err on opposite extremes. 

[. THE FOLLOWING THESFS SEEM TO EMBODY THE TRUE MEDIUM 
GROUNDS, EXHIBITING THE CONNECTION OF PHILOSOPHY WITH MOR- 
AIS: 

1. Man is naturally endued with both intellectual and moral faculties. 

2. These faculties, in their str.ctly native state, do not imply the pos- 
session of either knowledge or mcral principle, but a susceptibility for 
the reception and acquirement of both. 

3. In an intellectual sense, the native powers or faculties are aroused 
from their slumber and set. to work, in the acquirement of knowledge, 
by the entrance of light through the medium of external sensation. 

4. In a moral sense, our native powers or faculties are aroused from 
their slumber, and set to work, in the liscernment between right and 
wrong by the illuminations of divine grave. John i. 9; James i. 17. 
Dr. Clarke says (see Rom. ii. 16): “TI know of no light in nature that 
is not kindled there by the grace of God. But I have no objection to 
this sense: ‘When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by the in- 
fluence of God upon their heart the things cortained in the law, they 
are a law unto themselves ;’ that light and influence serving instead of 
a divine revelation.” 

5. The erroneous extreme of Locke’s system uf seisationalism seems 
to be this—that it denies to the mind the powei of acquiring any 
knowledge, the materials of which have not been criginally derived 
through the medium of external sensation, ignoring the fact that man 
is possessed, in his native state, of a “moral sense” or =n internal fac 
ulty of conscience, which, when aroused and enlightenrd by divine 
grace, enables him through the medium of internal consciousness to 
learn the distinction between right and wrong, so that all men are 
“without excuse.” Rom. i. 20. The extreme of this system leary ta 
materialism. 


Ch. ii.] PHILOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED. 745 


6. The erroneous extreme of modern transcendentalism seems to be 
this: that it attributes entirely to natwre the power of the “moral sense” 
to teach the distinction between right and wrong, giving to that native 
power the same ability, without supernatural aid, to learn the distine- 
tion between right and wrong that the intellect possesses to learn the 
distinction between black and white, sweet and bitter, straight and 
crooked, or two and four; thus ignoring the divine illuminations im- 
parted to all men through the atonement of Christ and the influence 
of the Spirit. The extreme of this system leads to Pelagianism and 
rationalism. 

7. The elements of knowledge are derived through external sensu- 
tion and internal consciousness. 

8. Right and wrong are eternal and unchangeable principles, inher- 
ently and essentially different in their nature. 

9. Our knowledge of the existence of right and wrong, and of the 
distinction between them, is derived, primarily, either from instruction, 
tradition, direct revelation, or the testimony of internal consciousness 
(the voice of conscience), when the moral sense has been aroused and 
illumined by divine grace. 

10. Our obligation to do right is founded on the will of our Creator. 

11. The will of God is nothing essentially distinct or different from 
God, but is only a transcript of the divine nature, or a manifestation 
of the divine attributes. 

12. We are bound to obey the will of God, because he made us what 
we are, and, by his continued power, preserves us in being as we are. 

13. The will of God, so far as known to us, is to us the-rule of right 
and wrong, whether we perceive the reasons of that will or not. 

14. Hence it follows, as the will of God is to us the rule of moral 
duty, even when the reasons of that will are not perceived, therefore 
the ground of obligation cannot be found, primarily and principally, 
in the eternal distinctions between right and wrong, but in the mani- 
fested will of God. If the ground of obligation is in the divine reason 
(as distinguished from the divine will), then the obligation could only 
be felt as the divine reason is perceived. But it must be admitted by 
all that, in many cases, obligation exists and is felt when the reason of 
the duty ts not perceived, and there is nothing for the obligation to rest 
~ upon but the divine will; therefore, in all such cases, the obligation 
must rest on the divine will as its basis, and we must also be governed 
by that will as the rule of duty. It may be objected that, “in a.1 cases, 
where obligation exists, and the reasons of it are not perceived, and 1 
seems to rest solely on the divine command, the fact of the command 


746 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii, B.1 


presupposes the existence of the reasons; for the command of God can 
no more transcend the divine reason than one of his attributes can 
light against another.” To this position, we reply: First, if the divine 
reason must necessarily always correspond with the divine command, 
-hen, so far as this question is concerned, the divine reason and the di- 
vine command are identical—they go hand in hand, and, in the case 
hefore us, are but two words for the same thing; only there is this per- 
ceptible difference, the divine command is plainer and more within our 
grasp than the divine reason, therefore safer and more accessible as 
the ground and rule of obligation. The truth is this: the divine rea- 
son, in all cases, whether we perceive it or not, must be considered the 
rule according to which God acts in issuing his commands, but cannot be 
to us (except so far as we may perceive it to correspond with the divine 
command) either the ground of our obligation or the rude of our duty. 

Look at the havoc in the system of morals which would result from 
making the divine reason instead of the divine will the ground of obli- 
gation, How can the puny reason of finite creatures grasp the infinite 
reasons that control the mind of God! In many cases, the reasons of 
his commands are hidden from our view; and where a glimpse of these 
reasons may be gained, who can estimate the vast expanse of this 
boundless ocean that lies quite unexplored and beyond our reach? 
And what controversy, what wrangling discussion, what uncertainty, 
what clouds and darkness, would at once be introduced, and thrown 
around the whole subject of morals, if, in order to reach the ground of 
our obligations, we be taught to go beyond the plain command of God, 
and vainly essay to fathom the depths of the Infinite Mind! 

To illustrate the inconvenience and confusion that would result from 
making the divine reason the ground of obligation, we quote the follow- 
ing: “In the divine reason must be found the ground of all moral obli- 
gution. And as the human reason is the outbirth and image of the di- 
vine, so its affirmations are the highest authority to man. The voice of 
conscience 13 the voice of God! There can be no higher authority in 
morals. It speaks more immediately and directly to the human heart 
than the voice of any prophet or seer. The necessary affirmations of 
the moral faculty are assumed as the reason of obligation. When the 
particular relation, in view of which a particular duty is affirmed, is 
apprehended, all the reason that can be assigned has been given why 
that duty is binding upon us. We have then discovered the only real and 
ultimate foundation of all obligation.” Methodist Quarterly Review, 
Jan., 1864, p. 28. 

In the above extract are found some things “hard to be understood,” 


Sh ii., PHILOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED. 747 


concerning which we offer the following remarks: According to the 
extract given, as there are many duties the divine reasons of which are 
utterly beyond our reach in such cases, how can we gain a knowledge 
of the ground of obligation? And not knowing the ground of the obli- 
gation, how can we know that the obligation exists? And not knowing 
that it exists, how can we feel its weight? And not feeling its weight, 
how can we be expected to comply with it? What was the ground of 
Adam’s obligation to obey the command, not to eat of the fruit-of “the 
tree of knowledge”? Did he know the “ divine reasons” why the fruit 
of that particular tree was interdicted? If so, how did he gain that 
knowledge? Did God explain to him the reason, or did the “ moral 
sense” teach it. It will not do to say that the annexed penalty was 
the reason on which the command was grounded; for that would im- 
ply that God desired to inflict the penalty, and only issued the com- 
mand as a pretext for carrying out this primary desire. Besides, the 
penalty was annexed, not to explain “ divine reasons” for the command, 
but to enforce obedience to it. If Adam ever gained a knowledge of the 
ground of his obligations to obey that command, except the fact that 
God had given the command, we have never read of it. And if any 
of his sons after him have traveled back into the secret counsels of 
God, so as to ascertain what were “the divine reasons” that dictated to 
the Divine Mind the special interdiction of the fruit of that particular 
tree, we hope they will come forth and enlighten us. If the first great 
test-command was not given under circumstances calculated to teach 
that the manifested will of God is the ground, and the sufficient ground, 
of moral obligation, then we cannot comprehend the subject. 

Again, the writer under review says: “The affirmations of human 
reason are the highest authority to man.” Surely not the affirmations of 
fallen, benighted, erring human reason! If this poor fallible reason is 
higher “authority to man” than the infallible word of God, then why de- 
nounce the infidelity of France for dragging the Bible through the streets 
of Paris at the tail of an ass, and exalting reason to divine honors? 

But the author says: “The voice of conscience is the voice of God!” 
Here is eloquence, but is it truth? Surely, it cannot be that the voice 
of a depraved, perverted, uninformed, “evil,” or “seared” conscience, 
“is the voice of God”! Nor can it be that the “voice of conscience,” 
generally, “is the voice of God;” for men’s consciences generally are 
evil. Was the voice of Saul’s conscience “the voice of God,” while he 
was persecuting the Church and yet living “in all good conscience 
before God”? Acts xxiii. 1. 

15. While “the voice of conscience” is admitted to he fallible, ane 


7-48 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iii, Bo 


the revealed will of God infallible, it cannot in truth be asserted that 
“there can be no higher authority in morals” than “ the voice of con- 
science.” While it is true that we cannot violate conscience without 
contracting guilt, it is not true that because we do not violate con- 
science we are therefore necessarily innocent. 

_Moral_philosophy, as defined by Dr. Paley, is “the science which 
teaches men their duty, and_the reasons for it,” It is more briefly de- 
fined in the “New American Cy Cyclopedia” as “the science of duty.” 

I]. Our first inquiry on the subject is this: Js RECTITUDE an essen- 
tial, inherent quality in actions, or is it the creature of adventitious cireum- 
stances? In other words, on what does the distinction between right 
and wrong depend? Whence does it originate? Those who have not 
deemed it necessary to found their theories concerning morals on the 
Bible have diverged greatly from each other in their speculations upon 
this question. 

1. Among the various theories concerning rectitude advocated by 
such as did not concern themselves about the teachings of revelati.a, 
the first we shall notice is this: that any thing is right or wrong only ae 
it happens to be sanctioned or condemned by the customs or laws of any 
particular country or community in any particular age or ee of the 
world. 

As will be readily perceived, this theory assumes that rectitude pos- 
sesses in itself no real, inherent, essential attributes, but depends en- 
lirely upon extraneous, adventitious circumstances, not only for its 
characteristics, but also for its existence—that is, it is nothing in and of 
itself; but if you choose to decree its existence, then it shall be; and 
whatever attributes you choose to confer upon it, those it shall possess. 

Perhaps the most prominent advocate of this theory among modern 
philosophers was Hobbes. And, like most of the principles of skep- 
tical philosophy, it need only to be tried at the tribunal of common 
sense to render its absurdity manifest. The first question here involved 
has nothing to do with the foundation of moral rectitude. It does not 
inquire why one thing is right and another wrong. It does not ask for 
the origin, ground, or cause of this distinction; but merely asks: Does 
it exist? Is rectitude an essential, substantive quality in itself? Are 
right and wrong things possessing essential, absolute existence, or are 
they merely idealities which may or may not be conjured up, and in- 
dued with any imaginary shape or qualities which fancy or prejudice 
may see fit to dictate? However consonant this theory which denies 
the essential existence of rectitude, and consequently all real distinction 
between virtue and vice, or moral good and evil, may be with that in- 


Ch. ii.] PHILOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED, T49 


fidel philosophy in whose necessitarian nest it has been ha.ched, or with 
certain schools of theology by whose dogmas it has been nurtured, yet 
it is easy to show that it is repugnant to the dictates of common sense. 

Rectitude is no more dependent on conventional arrangement for its 
existence than are any of those qualities that may pertain to physical 
substances. It is true that some things are in themselves indifferent, 
and become right or wrong only as they may be enjoined or prohibited 
by law. Thus it is right to pay a certain amount of tax at a stipu- 
lated time, and wrong to omit it, because the law of the land has en- 
joined it. It was wrong for our first parents to “eat of the fruit of the 
tree of knowledge of good and evil,” because God had forbidden it. 
These are positive precepts, relating to things indifferent in thems¢|ves, 
which only become right or wrong-as they may be commanded o1 pro- 
hibited by the power having authority to act in the premises. Sut it 
is equally clear, from the dictates of common sense, that there are other 
things, right or wrong in themselves, independent of all positive enact- 
ment or conventional arrangement of any kind whatever. 

It would be as unphilosophical to say that nothing can be straiyht or 
srooked until measured by a rule, or sweet or sour until tasted, as that 
nothing can be right or wrong until so rendered by custom, law, or 
conventional agreement. As sweet and sour, straight and crooked, de- 
note abstract qualities, having a real existence, independent of the physi- 
cal substances to which they may be attached; so right and wrong, good 
and bad, denote abstract principles, having a real existence in them- 
selves, independent of all internal emotion or external action to which 
they may be applied; hence we conclude that rectitude is an abstract 
principle, eternal and immutable as the attributes of God. Indeed, it 
is a principle inhering in, and essentially pertaining to, the divine 
nature, 

If, then, rectitude be an essential quality, eternally existing, it can- 
not derive its being solely from the command or will of God. Were 
this the case, then what is now right would be wrong, and what is now 
wrong would be right, had God so commaded. Common sense revolts 
at such consequences, and utters her voice against the truth of any sys- 
tem from which they result. It is true, what God wills or commands 
must be right, and to suppose that he should command what is wrong 
is to suppose an absolute impossibility. God can no more command 
what is wrong than he can change his nature, or cease to be God. But 
the theory, which teaches that rectitude results solely from the com. 
mand of God, assumes that theft, murder, and vice, are only worse 
than honesty, benevolence, and virtue, because God has commanded 


750 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. Bo 


the latter and forbidden the former; in a word, it destroys the essen- 
tial distinction between virtue and vice. Surely a system fraught with 
consequences so revolting and absurd never can gain the sanction of 
common sense. 

Nor is it any better to say that rectitude depends upon the arbitrary 
constitution of the human mind. Whether this refers to what is styled 
the “moral sense,” or to the sense of approbation or disapprobation aris- 
ing from the contemplation of actions, or to an internal emotion of sym- 
pathy, it matters not. It is clear that this constitution of the mind 
has been conferred upon us, as it is, by the Creator; and if so, it 
might have been different from what it is, and that which is now virtue 
might have been vice, and that which is now vice might have been vir- 
tue, Thus this theory of founding rectitude upon any thing pertaining 
to the constitution of the mind destroys the essential distinction be- 
tween right and wrong, virtue and vice. 

It matters not whether, with Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, we found 
rectitude upon the “ moral sense,” or, with Adam Smith, upon sympathy, 
or, with Dr. Brown, upon the emotion of approbation or disapprobation—it 
is clear that this theory, in either of the three phases specified, denies 
that rectitude possesses any essential quality, or that there is any real, 
essential, or original difference between virtue and vice. Indeed, these 
theories all, in this particular, harmonize with that of Hobbes, already 
considered. The only difference is this—while Hobbes founds rectitude, 
and all distinction between virtue and vice, upon custom or law, as 
they may exist in different countries; Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, 
Adam Smith and Dr. Brown, found them upon the constitution of the 
human mind. 

These theories not only deny that rectitude dénotes any actual qual- 
ity in actions, or that there is any real distinction between right and 
wrong, but they all alike fail even to furnish any definite criterion of 
rectitude, According to Hobbes, theft, infanticide, and parricide, are 
right or wrong according as they are sanctioned or c ndemned by 
the customs and laws of different countries. According to Shaftesbury 
and Hutcheson, things are right or wrong according as they may be 
pronounced upon by the moral sense of each individual. According to 
Adam Smith, things are right or wrong according as they may ex- 
cite, or fail to excite, the sympathies of those who contemplate them. 
But, agreeably to Dr. Brown’s theory, things are right and wrong ac- 
cording as they excite in him who contemplates them the emotion of 
approbation or disapprobation. Where, we ask, can be found in any 
of these theories a fixed criterion of rectitude? As the customs or 


n. ii.] PH LOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED. 751 


laws of the country may make theft a virtue in Sparta and a crime in 
England or the United States, so the moral sense—the sympathies, or 
the emotions of approbation or disapprobation, as they may be mani- 
fested in different minds—may vary; and thus, what is virtue with 
one may be vice with another. So it is plain that we have in these 
systems, not only no foundation, but no fixed criterion for rectitude, or 
for the distinction between right and wrong. Can any rational mind 
believe that the principles lying at the foundation of all morals are 
thus fitful and uncertain? Can it be that there are no principles of 
rectitude the same at all times and in all places? Is it not one of the 
plainest dictates of common sense that right and wrong are principles 
eternal and immutable as the attributes of God himself? 

III. Having therefore settled it in our minds that rectitude denotes 
an inherent, actual quality of actions, or that right_and_ wrong pos- 
sess an absolute existence, and are not the mere creatures of circum- 
stances; the next inquiry naturally presenting itself on this subject 
is this: WHAT IS THE GROUND OR FOUN 3AL_OBLI- 
GATION ? 

We have already shown that some things are essentially right and 
other things essentially wrong, but a knowledge of this fact will avail 
us but little in morals, unless it be shown that we are under obligations 
to do those things which are right, and to abstain from doing those 
things which are wrong. It no more follows, necessarily, that because 
an action is right Iam on that account alone bound to perform it, than 
that because an apple is sweet I am under obligations to eat it There 
must be some ground of the obligation beyond the mere quality of the 
action obliging me to perform it. Admitting that one thing is right 
and another thing wrong, why may I not do wrong instead of right, 
just as I may fancy or choose, without incurring guilt? We do not 
now inquire for any rue or standard of right and wrong, but merely 
for the obligation binding us to do the one and refrain from the other. 

On this question various theories have been advocated, some of the 
most prominent of which we will briefly notice. 

On this question much abstract and useless speculation has been em- 
ployed. For instance, the systems here adopted have been ranged in 
two classes: the subjective embracing those theories that found moral 
obligation on something within our own nature, whether it be styled the 
moral sense, conscience, or the constitution of the human mind; the 
objective implying those theories that found moral obligation on things 
external tous. Under this head are comprised those theories that found 


moral obligation: 1._On the authority of the State. 2, On something 


752 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [P. iii, B. 1. 


in the inherent nature of things, 3. On the greatest_happiness, or the 


benefits resulting from things. 4. On the revealed will of God. 
Ignoring any farther reference to the subjective aud objective classiti- 


cation as a useless parade of scholastic terms, we here remark that the 
theory we believe to be true, and the only one consistent with Chris- 
tianity, is that which founds moral obligation on the revealed will of 
God. It may be proper, however, here to make a few observations 
concerning some of the other systems above named. 

ided rectitude itself _u : aw, but, as 
a necessary consequence, he founded moral obligation upon the same 
thing. aye eS) of his eed has already been shown. 


as as founded on the_fitness 0 This theory has two capital objec- 
‘tions: First, it fails to fur , What is most of all material in the case, 


the reason ve are under obligation to act according to the fitness 
of things; but, secondly, admitting the existence of the obligation, it 
es_the rule or criterion of dut For, as every 
nan is left to be his own judge as to the fitness of things, it is clear 
that there would be about the same variety of judgment upon this sub- 
ject that exists in the features of the human countenance; and thus 
every man would be left quite out at sea as to any fixed rule of right 
and wrong. 

To found moral obligation, with Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, upon the 
moral sense, is liable to the same objections with the scheme of Grotius 
and Dr. Samuel Clarke, It sets forth no satisfactory reason, showing 
why we are under obligation to follow the dictates of the moral sense 
and, even if this could be shown, it is plain that this moral sense, or 
inward perception of right and wrong, in regard to many things, is 
very much the creature of education and of circumstances. It is about 
as variant in different countries and among different people as the cli- 
mate and soil pertaining to their respective localities. What this moral 
sense may accredit as the highest virtue with the Hindoo widow, may 
be viewed with the deepest abhorrence throughout Christian lands. 

Besides, this whole scheme is palpably contradictory to the teachings 
ol St. Paul. This apostle, in defending himself before the Jewish 
high-priest, Ananias, declares, “ Men and brethren, I have lived in all 
good conscience before God until this day.” It is plain, then, that he 
had not come in conflict with the moral sense within him while he was 
persecuting the Christians. And in his defense before Agrippa, the 
apostle says, “I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many 
things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Was Saul of 


a a i ai 


Ch. ii. PHILOSO1 ICAL THESES EXHIBL.ED. T53 


Tuisus doing right, we ask, while he was persecuting the Church of 
God? He styles himself “the chief of sinners,” and says that he 
had been a “blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious;”’ and he 
adds, “but I obtained mercy, because I did it jgnorantly in unbelief.” 
Now, we ask, how could he have needed mercy, unless he had violated 
his obligations? And if, while living “in all good conscience before 
God,” or according to the teachings of the moral sense within him, 
he had violated his obligations, how could that moral sense be either 
the ground or the criterion of his obligations? 
The plain truth is this: th: as sinning, or vi 


gations while h ; but his sin_ consisted not 


inform hig_consei But still, as he violated his obligations, while 
he did not violate his conscience or the moral sense, it necessarily fol- 
lows that the moral sense cannot be the ground of moral obligation. 


Although we ought in n0 Case To violate our consciences, yet, as we are 
often culpable for not correcting our consciences when they are wrong, 
these consciences cannot be the primary ground of obligation. We 
must look for something anterior and superior to the moral sense, and 
more authoritative, as the ground of moral obligation. 

If, with Wollaston, we attempt to found moral obligation on “the 
truth of things;” with Wayland, on “the relations of things;” or with 
President Edwards, on “the love of being in general ;” all these the- 
ories are liable to the same objections with those we have considered. 
They must vary, as do the judgments and tastes of individuals, and of 
course can furnish no fixed criterion of obligation; and, being destitute 
of authority, they can furnish no ground of obligation. 

Take the theory of Paley, that <wiriueis the doing good to mankind, 

ke of everlasting ha é 
and it is plain that he makes “everlasting happiness” the motive of 
virtue. One of the very serious objections to this theory is, that it 
fou igati rinciple of selfishness, excluding from virtuous 
actions all deeds of benevolence. But were it freed from this objec- 
tion, still it furnishes no reason why we are obliged to seek after “ ever- 
lasting happiness.” 

Bectham founded moral obligation on “utility, or the greatest good of 
the greatest number.” But it is irksome, as it is useless, to perplex our 
minds with the theories and speculations of the many reputable authors 
who have written on this subject. Were these authors only pagan phi- 
losophers, feeling their way in the dark in their search for truth, the 


48 


T5A ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pear Bay 


matter would not be surprising; but that learned divines should delight 
so much to bewilder themselves amid the speculations of mere natural 
reason, when the superior, the infallible, light of revelation was shining 
around them, is unaccountably strange. 

When once we are ready to forget these theoretic speculations on the 
subject in hand, and pass directly to the inspired word, how forcibly 
does the truth flash upon the mind, that “moral obligation is founded on 
the revealed will of God”! 

Were there no other proof upon this subject than the preface to the 
Decalogue, in the twentieth chapter of Exodus, that were enough. 
“And God spake all these words, saying, Iam the Lord thy God which 
have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bond- 
age.” Here, as the ground on which this law is issued and obedience 
to its precepts enjoined, we have directly specified the relation God sus: 
tains to his creatures. First, he is “ the Lord” (or Jehovah)—this im- 
plies that he is the supreme Ruler of the universe; and next, “thy 
God”—this implies that he is the Creator of man, the Author and Pre- 
server of his being. ‘Which have brought thee out of the land of 
Egypt, out of the house of bondage”—this specifies the blessings of 
his special providence. No one can fail to perceive how expressly the 
relation God sustains to us is here set forth as the ground of our obli- 
gation to obedience. 

And it must be obvious to every Bible-reader that this accords with 
the general tenor of Scripture. Samuel said to the people of Israel, “Only 
fear the Lord, and serve him in truth with all your heart; for consider 
how great things he hath done for you.” 1 Sam. xxii. 24. 

That, according to the gospel scheme of morals, obligation grows out 
of our relation to God, is explicitly taught by St. Paul. He says: “Ye 
are not your own, for ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God 
in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” The conclusion 
from these passages from the prophet and from the apostle is, that as 
God “hath done great things for us”—that is, in our creation, preser- 
vation, and redemption—and as we have been redeemed by the precious 
blood of Christ, therefore we are under obligations to “serve him in 
truth, with all our heart,” and to “glorify him in our body and in our 
spirit, which are God’s.” Hence, moral obligation grows out of our 
relation to God ;_ and as this relation to God can only be understood by 
us from his revealed will, we must rely upon that will as furnishing 
both the ground and the criterion of our obligations. In other words, 
the revelation of God teaches us “our duty, and the reasons for it.” 

If we be asked why we are under obligations to perform any partic. 


Ch. it.) PHILOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED. 155 


ular moral duty, our reply is, that it is according to the revealed will 
of God. But if we be farther interrogated why we are bound to act 
according to the revealed will of God, our reply is, because of our re- 
lation to God—that is, he is our Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer, 
We are dependent upon him for our being and all our blessings; and 
nothing can be plainer or more natural and reasonable than his right 
to command us, and our obligations to render obedience are a necessary 
sequence. | 

Whether we trace our obligations to the revealed will of God or to 
our relations to God is perfectly immaterial—they both amount sub- 
stantially to the same thing. These obligations rest immediately on 
God’s revealed will. Whatever he commands, we are at once bound 
to obey. And if it be demanded why we are bound to obey God’s 
revealed will; the reply is, because of our relation to God. It is our 
relation to God, as his dependent creatures, that obliges us to regard 
his revealed will as our authoritative law. 

That the Scriptures themselves abundantly set forth the revealed 
will of God, both as the ground of obligation and the criterion of recti- 
tude, cannot be disputed. The passages we have already adduced, we 
think, ought to be sufficient to satisfy every candid mind on the ques- 
tion. If more were necessary, they might be brought from almost any 
portion of either the Old or the New Testament. When God called 
Adam to account for his first sin—the partaking of the forbidden fruit 
—and was about to pronounce sentence upon him for his offense, on 
what ground did he place his guilt? Did he charge him with hav- 
ing disregarded “the fitness of things,” with having acted contrary to 
“the truth of things,” with having neglected to act according to “the 
utility of things,” with having failed to consult the “moral sense ” or 
the “sympathies” of his nature, or “the greatest good of the greatest 
number”? The very mention of any such puerilities would have been 
degrading to so serious an occasion. God, who understood the ground 
of moral obligation far better than any of the Christian moralists of our 
day, simply said to Adam: “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I 
commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?” Here was the plain 
ground of his offense. He had violated his obligation to obey God’s re- 
vealed will. 

Take an illustration from the patriarchal dispensation. When God 
so signally blessed Abraham, after the trial of his faith in the offering 
up of Isaac, what was specified as the grownd on which that blessing 
was conferred? God said to Abraham: “In thy seed shall all the na- 
tions of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Here 


756 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P 1. B 1 


as obedience to Ged’s revealed will, was the ground of the reward, even 
so that revealed will must have been the ground of the obligation. 

As one illustration among thousands that might be adduced under 
the Mosaic dispensation, we refer to the words of the Prophet Samuel 
(1 Sam. xy. 22): “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings 
and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is 
better than sacrifice.” If obedience be thus the crowning virtue, “t 
must be because our obligations are thereby met; and if so, those ob.i- 
gations must be founded on the command. 

Let a single text from the New Testament suffice on this subject. 
Jesus said: “ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter 
into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father 
which is in heaven.” Here the doing of the will of God (of course, the 
revealed will) is presented as the condition of the heavenly reward; con- 
sequently, that wild must not only be the eriterion of duty, but the ground 
of obligation. 

How plain is this question when once we are ready to leave the phil- 
vsophical speculations and interminable quibbles and disputations of 
the schools and study “our duty, and the reasons for it,” from the 
teachings of inspired wisdom! Here, as we approach the word of rev: 
elation, the great source of illumination on all spiritual and moral sub- 
jects, the fine-spun theories, metaphysical distinctions, and endless dis- 
putations, of philosophers, are forgotten. They melt away and fade 
from our vision, like mist before the rising morn; and, under the efful- 
gent beams of revelation, we can read “the whole duty of man,” and 
“the reasons for it,” in language so plain that “the wayfaring man, 
though a fool, need not err therein.” Let Christian divines bring their 
systems of morals, not from the Academy, the Lyceum, or the Portico, 
but from divine revelation ! 


Ch. 11.) 


i 


PHILOSOPHICAL THESES EXHIBITED. 


757 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER II. 


Question 1, What is the definition of 


2. 


3 


6. 


~ 


moral philosophy ? 

What erroneous theory of rectitude 
was advocated by Hobbes? 

At what tribunal, and how may its 
absnrdity be shown? 

How is it shown that rectitude is an 
abstract and eternal principle? 

What absurd consequences are in- 
volved in the position that recti- 
tude results solely from the coin- 
mand of God? 

What consequences are involved in 
the position that rectitude is found- 
ed on the constitution of the hu- 
man mind? 

What theories on this subject were ad- 
vocated by Shaftesbury and Hutch- 


8. 


9. 


10. 


eson? By Adam Smith? By Dr. 
Brown? 

Do they all harmonize with the the- 
ory of Hobbes? Wherein? 

What two essential things do all 
these theories fail to furnish? 

Because an action is right, does it 
follow from that consideration 
alone that we are bound to per- 
forin it? 


. What theories are presented in ref- 


erence to the ground of moral obli- 
gation ? 


. What is given as the true theory? 
. How is the absurdity of these false 


theories shown? 
By what procfs is the true theory 
sustained ? 


PART IIL.—THE MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY.: 


BOOK 11 —OUR DUTY TO GOD 


CHAPTER III. 


LOVE—THE FEAR OF GOD. 


Havine shown that the Bible must be our standard and guide on 
the subject of morals, we are now prepared to inquire for the outline of 
sur duty as set forth in that volume. On this subject writers on morals 
have differed in their plans, but they have generally contemplated “the 
whole duty of man” as embraced in three grand divisions: 1. Our 
duty to God. 2. Our duty to ourselves. 3. Our duty to one another. 
The particular classification we may adopt is not important, provided 
all our duties be embraced, and each be presented in its true light. In 
the largest acceptation of the terms, our duty to God would cover the 
entire circle of our obligations; for all our duties ¢o ourselves and to our 
fellow-creatures are founded upon the revealed will of God; and, by 
neglecting any of them, we are rebelling against the divine authority 
and treating God’s commandment with disrespect, and, of course, com- 
ing short of “our duty to God.” Therefore it is clear that he who per- 
forms his whole duty to God, in this broad sense of the word, must also 
perform his duty to himself and to all other persons. 

Nevertheless, as there are some duties which pertain more directly to 
God alone than others, it may be useful, as a matter of convenience in 
discussion, to adopt some classification on the subject. And we can 
conceive of no division of duty which commends itself to us so forcibly 
as that adopted by our Lord when he enunciated the two great com- 
mandments of love to Ged and love to man as comprising the entire law. 

(759) 


T60 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iii, B 2 


“On these two commandments,” said he, “hang all the law and the 
prophets.” In presenting this grand epitome of the Decalogue, our 
Saviour was only carrying out and affixing his own sanction to that 
more ancient division upon the subject which had been so clearly inti- 
mated in the original communication of the law at Mount Sinai. The 
two tables of stone—the first comprising our duty to God, and the 
second our duty to man—exhibited in a tangible form, more durable 
than marble, this grand classification of morals. Doubtless the mind 
of our Saviour adverted to this fact, as he adopted the same division 
while substantially reissuing the Mosaic Decalogue in that beautiful 
and more comprehensive edition set forth in the two great command- 
ments to which we have referred. Therefore we conclude that the 
entire system of Christian morals is embraced under the grand divis 
ions of— 

1, Love to Gop. 

2. Love To MAN. 

Or the same thing is more largely expressed thus: 

L. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with 
all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” 

2. “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” 

We need not stop to show how complete, and yet how plain, is this 
classification! It is too obvious to be controverted, that he who fulfills 
these two commandments must necessarily not only perform his duty 
to himself, but he must fully discharge every conceivable obligation of 
every kind whatever. 

We now proceed to consider more particularly— 

Our purty To Gop. 

I. The first duty we owe to God is Love. Indeed, in the full sense, 
love comprises all duties; but there is a specific sense in which love may 
be viewed as separated from other duties. Contemplated in this accep- 
tation, love to God implies— 

1. A due appreciation of the divine perfections. 

That is, we must love him for what he is in himself. Having a just 
conception of the purity and excellence of the divine essence—the 
harmonious unity of all the divine attributes and their beautiful exhi- 
bition of every conceivable phase of goodness—the affections of the 
soul flow toward God in emotions of approval, admiration, and delight. 
Thus, the “heart and the flesh crieth out for the living God,” saying, 
“Whom have Tin heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I 
desire besides thee.” 

2. As we contemplate the divine goodness, whether exhibited in the 


Ch. iin. LOVE—THE FEAR OF GOD. 761 


works, the providence, or the redeeming mercy of God, this love 
assumes the form of gratitude. 

Our duty of loving God, in the sense of gratitude, is far more than a 
mere sentimental admiration of the disinterested benevolence of Heaven, 
as seen in all his works and ways. It implies an inwrought spiritual 
apprehension of his redeeming, regenerating, adopting, sanctifying, and 
saving goodness. It is in this profoundly deep and spiritual sense of 
the phrase that the Psalmist exclaims: “I love the Lord, because he 
hath heard my voice and my supplications;” and St. Paul says: ‘ For 
the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one 
died for all, then were all SE and St. John declares: “ We love 
him, because he first loved us.’ 

3. Love to God implies unreserved : and filis 
tence to his commandments, 

The Psalmist uses the term in this sense, when he says: “Great peace 
have they which love thy law.” In the same sense our Saviour uses 
the term, when he says: “ Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I com- 
mand you.” And again: “He that hath my commandments, and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me.” And St. John says: “ By this we 
know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his 
commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his command- 
ments.” And St. Paul declares: “ove is the fulfilling of the law.” 

From this clear and scriptural view of the duty of the love of God, 
as an internal principle of grace imparted by the influence of the Holy 
Spirit, and absorbing the affections and molding the life, being essential 
to the “keeping of the law of God,” how meager and defective must 
be the teachings of nature, as a standard of morals; and how impor- 
tant must it appear that we adhere, on this subject, closely to the teach- 
ings of the divine word! 


IL_The second duty, under this head, which we shall notice, is THE > hax 

EAR OF Gop. This implies a reverential awe of the Divine Majesty, 
and a dread of displeasing a Being of so holy and excellent a charac- 
ter; and is entirely distinct from that servile, tormenting emotion, which 
the guilty, unrenewed heart may feel, resulting from the apprehension 
of punishment for sins committed. It is a filial, tender, and respectful 
emotion, fitly illustrated by that lovely regard which an affectionate, 
dutiful child may feel for a worthy parent, causing it to be ever watch 
ful lest it should displease that parent—not from any punishment to 
itself apprehended as the result, but from a sense of the wickedness of 
the act of offending one so much admired and loved, and on whom it is 
wo greatly dependent. 


submission to his authority 


762 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 2 


This duty is inculcated in the following scriptures. “The fear of the 
Lord_is to_hate_evil.” Proy, viii, 13. “The fear of the Lord is the 
beginning of wisdom.” Ps. cxi, 10, “Fear God, and keep his com- 
‘mandments ; for this is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12.18. “His— 

_mercy is on them that fear him.” Luke i. 50. “Then they that feared 


the Lord spake often one to another; and_the—Lord—hearkened, and_ 
heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before—him_for them 


———_ 


that feared the Lord, and that_thought-upon—his_name”_Malachi-ii 
16. “Fear God, and give glorytohim.” Rev. xiv. 7__ 


There are various other duties to God pertaining to the internal dis- 
position and emotions of the heart, such as fidelity, trust, faith, ete.; but 
as these have been considered in connection with the doctrines of Chris- 
tianity, we will not here bring up the same topics again. There are 
yet, however, some duties, under the general head we are now investi- 
gating, of a more eaternal character, to which we will call attention in 
the following chapters. 


A QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER III. 


Question 1. In what divisions have | 4. What is our first duty to God? 
writers generally embraced our | 5. What is its first element, and what 


whole duty? does it imply? What are its second 
2 What is important in reference to and third, and what do they imply? 
these divisions? 6 What is implied in the “fear of 
3 What is the classification on this sub- God,” and what scriptures enjoin 


ject adopted? it? 


Ch. iv.; PRAYER-—ITS NATURE AND PROPRIETY. THS 


CHAPTER IV. 


PRAYER—ITS NATURE AND PROPRIETY. 


Tuis duty, though generally classed as external, in contradistinction 
from others more wholly internal, is: really both external and internal. 
As, on the one hand, it is an outward form or external act, so, on the 
other hand, it is an internal emotion or exercise of the soul. Prayer 
has been well defined as the “offering up of our desires unto God for 
things agreeable to his will, in the name or through the mediation of 
Jesus Christ, by the help of the Holy Spirit, with a confession of our 
sins, and a thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.” 

The leading thought in this definition has |. en beautifully expressed 
by the poet, in the following lines: 


‘Prayer is the soul’s sincere desire, 
Uttered or unexpressed ; 
The motion of a hidden fire 
That trembles in the breast. 


“Prayer is the burden of a sigh— 
The falling of a tear— 
The upward glancing of an eye 
When none but God is near.” 


Prayer, when offered vocally, or in the form of words, is style. an 
external duty; but even then, unless the proper emotion of the neart 
accompany the utterance of the language, the most essential element 
of prayer will be wanting. 

I. Before we proceed to the scriptural presentation of this subject, 
in its different phases, we call attention to THE REASON AND PROPBI- 

: TY: 

The-first, and, with the believer in revelation, the great and all-suff- 
cient reason for this duty 1s, it Were we un 
able to perceive a single ground of propriety in it beyond the mere 
command of God, that fact alone, with all who acknowledge the truth 
of revelation, would place the obligation of this duty on as firm a basis 


To4 KLEMENTS OF DIV.NITY. [P. iii, Be 


as that of any other duty whatever; yet, to skeptical minds, it may he 
useful, so far as our reason can penetrate, to offer some remarks con- 
cerning the propriety of prayer, as intimated by the light of nature. 

1. In_the first place, it tends to preserve vividly in the nunda 
recollection of the attributes _and general superintendency of God. 


He who seriously offers prayer to God, must necessarily remember, 
not only that there is a God, but that he possesses omnipresence, 
enabling him to hear prayer at all times and places, and omniscience, 
ommipotence, and infinite goodness, so that he has the wisdom, the 
power, and the disposition, to answer prayer. 

that pernicious and infidel notion of confiding alone in secondary causes 
It not only contributes to impress us with a sense of our wants and 
necessities, and our native imbecility and utter inability to help our- 
selves, but it ever reminds us that He who made the world has not 
withdrawn his constant care and attention from the production of his 
creative hand, but that his sustaining and controlling influence is dif- 
fused abroad throughout all parts of his creation. 


3. Some have attempted to ground the reason and propriety of prayer 
upon the moral preparation and fitness it is supposed to produce for the 
reception of the blessings we ask. If by this it be understood that 


prayer is either the effective instrument or the active agent in producing 
in the heart that sincere penitence and faith which prepare us for the 
reception of divine grace in justification, regeneration, and sanctification, 
or in that salvation which the gospel proposes—if this be the sense of 
the position, it is not only unscriptural, but involves several absurdities. 

It_is unscriptural, because repentance, faith, and salvation, are every- 
where im Scripture represente as being produced by prayer, or any 
other act of the creature, dut by the agency of the Divine Spirit—* For 


it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do cf his good pleas- 
ure.” According to the whole tenor and scope of Scripture, the entire 
work of salvation, from beginning to end, embracing conviction, con- 
version, justification, remission of sins, adoption, and sanctification, is 
of God, and not of ourselves; and all this is effected through the effi- 
cient agency of the Holy Spirit, and on the ground of the atoning 
merits of Christ. Hence, to attribute this influence to prayer, or to the 
performance of any other Christian duty, however important that duty 
may be, is to subvert the entire gospel scheme as so fully set forth in 
the Scripture. 

Prayer is a condition enjoined upon us in Scripture, ups» the per- 
formance of which God has promised to confer upon us certain bles» 


Ch. iv. PRAYER—ITS NATURE AND PROPRIETY. T65 


ings; but it is not, in the proper sense, either the instrument through 
which, or the agent by which, those blessings are conferred. Neither 
the blessing of salvation, in its several stages of conviction, regenera- 
tion, ete., nor that humility, penitence, and faith, in which a prepara 
tion for the reception of those blessings consists, is conferred by the 
instrumentality or efficient agency of prayer. 

To attribute the blessings in question to the efficacy of prayer, is not 
only contrary to Scripture, as we have shown, but the theory involves 
absurdity in itself. 

First, it must be admitted that prayer—in order to be acceptable to 
God, and to render it what it must be, as a condition, on the perform- 
ance of which God has promised the blessings of salvation—must be 
offered in penitence and faith. Now, to suppose that this penitence and 
faith—an essential element of acceptable prayer—result from the act 
of praying, is absurd. This would imply that we must first possess 
penitence and faith before we can use the instrument through whose 
efficacy we gain that possession—which is a palpable contradiction. 

But if it be absurd to suppose that we gain a preparation for salva- 
tion by the efficacy of prayer, it must be doubly absurd to suppose that 
we gain salvation itself by that efficacy. Indeed, the theory we here 
oppose is inconsistent with the very nature of prayer. What is prayer 
but the offering up by the heart of a petition to God for blessings which 
we feel that we need, and which we desire him to confer upon us? And 
how, we demand, cin we ask God to bestow upon us those blessings 
which we expect efficaciously to result from the mere act of asking? 
If the act of asking works out the blessing, then the idea that the 
blessing is conferred in answer to the petition is an absurdity, for, 
according to the theory, the act of praying effectually works jut its own 
answer; and, so far as we can see, this result, according to the theory in 
yuestion, would be just as effectually reached on the supposition that 
God did not hear the petition at all. Surely a position so repugnant 
to Seripture, and so fraught with absurdity, is not to be sanctioned. 

We have been the more particular in noticing this theory, because 
of the manifest favor it has received in certain quarters, and of our 
conviction of its pernicious tendency. It saps the foundation of all 
experimental, spiritual influence. Its tendency is to deny the direct 
agency of the Spirit, and put God out of the world; under the pretense 
of exalting the duty of prayer to a position of superior importance and 
influence, it, in reality, renders it an absurdity, and deprives it of all its 
efficacy. 


When we contemplate prayer as a mere condition enjoined by the 


766 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 2 


appointment of God, upon the performing of which he has promised to 
confer his blessings, its importance and advantages result, not from the 
fact that it is supposed to possess inherent virtue or direct efficacy con- 
ferring, by the mere act of praying, the blessings desired, but from the 
fact that it looks to a higher Power for assistance, and complies with a 
condition in connection with the performance of which that assistance 
has been promised. While prayer, in itself, possesses no inherent virtue 
or efficacy, yet, by the divine appointment, it is a condition which con: 
nects with itself the efficient agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus it is that 
the prayer of faith can “move the hand that moves the world.” 

On the other hand, if, in accordance with the position we have been 
opposing, the influence of prayer is only to be found in its operation 
upon the internal principles and emotions of the suppliant, then it fol- 
lows that, as we rely on this inherent efficacy resulting from the act of 
praying for the conferring of the blessings desired, of course, we cannot 
look to God for the impartation of those blessings by the direct agency 
of his Holy Spirit. Thus, according to this view, the suppliant is 
working a practical deception upon himself. While, in words, asking 
God to give him a new heart—to give him faith, hope, charity, humil- 
ity, peace, joy, etc.—(as though he supposed that God was listening to 
his voice, and would exert a direct agency in answering his petitions), 
he is really only looking for that new heart, faith, hope, charity, humil- 
ity, peace, joy, etc., to spring up within him while praying—not as the 
result of any direct agency of the Holy Spirit, but as the natural effect 
of the mere exercise of prayer itself. 

A man on his knees before God, with these views of the efficacy of 
prayer, resembles one out upon the water in a boat, with one end of a 
cable in his hand and the other fastened to the shore. While pulling 
the cable, he may fancy he is causing the distant shore to approach 
him, but, in reality, he is approaching the shore, while i remains sta- 
tionary. Just so, agreeably to this theory, the suppliant, while beseech- 
ing God to draw near by his Spirit and bless him as he needs, may 
imagine that God is hearing and directly answering his prayer; but it 
is only an illusion: he is drawing nearer to God; and, by the mere act 
of praying for these blessings, they naturally spring up in his soul. If 
this view does not render prayer a senseless and solemn mockery, it 
divests it of its scriptural vitality and power. 

The absurdity of the theory under review appears, farther, from the 
fact that we may pray for many blessings which, from their nature, 
cannot result from the mere internal efficacy of prayer itself. Thus, 
we ask for the pardon of sin, which is an act of God which he alone 


Uh. iv.] PRAYER—ITS NATURE AND PROPRIETY. 767 


can perform. We ask for our daily food and raiment, ror deliverance 
from danger and affliction, and for a thousand things which the mere 
act cf praying cannot confer, It is true, the act of praying must exert 
a beneficial influence on the heart; but that this constitutes the ground 
on which the propriety of this duty rests, or that it is thus alone that 
answer to prayer is to be expected, is a position manifestly unscriptural, 
absurd, and injurious. 

II. We now notice some of the OBJECTIONS to prayer. 

1. An objection to this duty has been founded upon the doctrine of 

redestinati. 

It is alleged that, “if all things have been predestinated and fore- 
ordained from all eternity, in so absolute and unconditional a sense that 
nothing can take place differently from what it does, then there can be 
no propriety in prayer, since nothing can be effected thereby.” We 
have never seen a consistent answer to this objection without a denial 
of the doctrine on which it is based; nor do we think it possible, in any 
other way, to meet it with a satisfactory answer. But, as the doctrine 
of predestination has been amply considered in our discussion of the 
“Doctrines of Christianity,” we deem it unnecessary to add any thing 
farther on the subject in this place. As the Calvinistic view of pre- 
destination has been abundantly refuted, the objection in hand of course 
falls with it. 

2. Another objection to prayer is founded on the fact that “God is in. 
finitely wise and good.” It is argued that, “ therefore, he will bestow upon 
us every thing proper for us to possess, without prayer; and that what 
is not proper for us to possess, he will not give in answer to prayer.” 

To this it may be replied, that, because God is infinitely wise and 
good, he may therefore see that it would be proper for him to bestow 
upon us certain things, in answer to prayer, that it would not be proper 
for him to bestow, without prayer. Infinite Wisdom and Goodness must 
take into account all the circumstances bearing upon the case in hand, 
in order to determine what is fit and proper; and as the character of 
the individual is a very essential circumstance bearing upon the ques- 
tion as to what is proper to be conferred upon him, and as the fact of 
his praying or not praying, since God has commanded that duty, may 
be a very appropriate test of character, it follows that our praying or 
not praying may properly determine the divine procedure in bestowing 
or withholding certain blessings. 

The principle here involved is beautifully illustrated in the parable 
of the Talents. The lord of the servants gave to each of the three 
“according to his several ability.” To one he gave five talents, te 


T68 ELNMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 2 


another two, and to another one. Now, as the lord of these servants 
distributed to each “according to his several ability,” it is plain that it 
would have been improper for him to have given éwo talents to the 
servant to whom he gave one, or five to him to whom he gave two. And 
why? Because that would have been bestowing upon them more than 
they were capable of managing; and, consequently, would have involved 
a waste which the dictates of wisdom would have avoided. And if the 
fact of one being able to manage more than another renders it proper 
to bestow more upon one than upon another, for the same reason it will 
be proper to vary the amount bestowed upon the same servant, accord- 
ing as his circumstances may change, so as to render him capable of 
managing more at one time, or under one state of circumstances, than at 
another time, or under a different state of circumstances. The only 
question, therefore, to be here considered is this: is the fact of one 
praying, and another not praying, calculated so to change or vary 
the circumstances of the two, as to render it proper, according to 
the dictates of wisdom, to bestow upon one what is withheld from the 
other? 

When it is remembered that God has enjoined the duty of prayer, it 
must be evident that a refusal to perform that duty implies a spirit of 
direct rebellion against the divine authority. And since God has con- 
nected with the performance of this duty the promise of many desirable 
blessings, and has connected with its neglect the withholding c* those 
blessings, as well as exposure to many evils, it necessarily follows that 
a refusal or neglect to perform the duty of prayer evinces a “wicked 
heart of unbelief.’ Now, is it not plain that the dictates of wisdom 
would require a different administration toward a rebellious, unbeliev- 
ing servant, from what would be proper in reference to a submissive 
and confiding one? Our Saviour said: “Give not that which is holy 
unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine.” To bestow upon 
a rebellious, wicked, unbelieving sinner, such blessings as would be 
appropriate for a docile, obedient, and confiding Christian, would be as 
incongruous and as repugnant to the dictates of wisdom and goodness 
as to “cast pearls before swine.” From all these considerations, it 
appears that it may be exceedingly proper and consistent with the 
divine attributes, for God to bestow, in answer to prayer, what he would 
otherwise withhold. 

The form of this objection is sometimes varied thus: “God,” it 18 
said, “will do whatever is best, whether we pray or not; therefore our 
praying or not praying cannot affect his administration toward us,” 
When the obiection is presented in this form, we cheerfully admit the 


Uh. iv.] PRAYER—ITS NATURE AND PROPRIETY. 769 


premises. ‘To admit that God will do what is best, is only to admit that 
“the Judge of all the earth will do right;” or, in other words, that 
“God is too wise to err, and too good to be unkind.” But what has 
this admission to do with the conclusion in the objection? This conclu- 
sion assumes that it never can be best for God to bestow any thing, in 
answer to prayer, which he would otherwise withhold. It assumes, that 
what is best under one state of circumstances must be best under all 
circumstances. The conclusion, in the objection, is as palpable a non 
sequitur as can be imagined —it does not follow from the premises. 
The conclusion assumed, in this objection, is what never has been and 
never can be proved. From the simple position that “God will always 
do what is best,” it no more follows that, therefore, he will not bestow, in 
whswer to prayer, what he would otherwise withhold, than that he witli, 
in answer to prayer, bestow what he would otherwise withhold. Before 
any conclusion can logically be drawn on either side, it must be shown 
wha <2 best under the circumstances. T'hat is the very point in dispute ; 
and ». is the point which the objection begs in its own favor, but does 
not att “pt to prove. ‘That it may often be best for God to bestow, in 
answer .) prayer, what it would be dest for him, in the absence of prayer, 
to withh 'd, must be obvious, from the considerations offered, in answer 
to the ob, ction in the form previously given. Indeed, the objection, in 
the two fo ms just considered, is substantially identical. The only dif 
ference is, that, in the latter form, the word best is substituted for the 
word pro *, in the former. | 

In refere. ce to all these objections offered to the duty of prayer, and 
all others t. at the ingenuity and wickedness of man can invent, the 
best answer hat can be given is, that the Bible is true. ‘They all grow 
out of the ,vinciples of skepticism. Admit that an infinitely holy, 
wise, and me. ciful God, has given us a revelation of his will, and that 
in that revelstion the duty of prayer is enjoined, and these frivolous 
objections are at once scattered te the winds. It is enough that an 
almighty and .ul-sufficient, all-merciful and righteous Creator, has com- 
manded his pi or, dependent, and helpless creatures, saying, “Call upon 
me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify 
me.” That Gud has commanded the duty, and promised the blessing, 
is an answer w.iich, with every sincere believer, shall silence every cavil 
and remove every doubt; and, with the most unshaken confidence, 
relying on the truth of God’s word, his language will be: “Hear, O 
Lord, when I c.y with my voice; have mercy also upon me, and answer 
me. When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy 


face, Lord, wil! I seek.” 
AQ 


770 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B %. 


All difficulty which may arise in the mind inrelation to the propriety 
of prayer, should at once give way when it is remembered that this 
duty originates in the appointment of God. It will be admitted that the 
grace or favor of God, whether it relates to the spiritual blessings of 
salvation or the temporal mercies of this life, is all free and unmerited. 
It is not conferred upon us on account of our own deservings, but on 
the ground of Christ’s atoning merits; hence, as God is free to “ Lave 
mercy on whom he will have mercy,” it is also his prerogative to sus: 
pend the conferring of that mercy on any condition his own wisdom 
may select. And as he has appointed the duty of prayer as one of 
those conditions, this fact alone should not only suppress every murmur- 
ing thought against the plans of God, but it should stir every heart with 
gratitude that the conditions of mercy are rendered so easy, and the 
burden of Christ so light. What is more natural than for the heart, 
when burdened with a sense of want, of danger, or of affliction, to ery 
for help? And how grateful should we be for the assurance that the 
Lord “heareth the prayer of the righteous” ! 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IV. 


Question 1. What general definition of produce the blessings for which we 
prayer is given? pray? 

2. On what is this duty primarily | 6. In what manner does prayer secure 
founded ? the divine blessing? 

3. Does the light of nature intimate the | 7. What objections have been offered to 
propriety of prayer? prayer? 

4. What beneficial tendencies of prayer | 8. How may they be answered? 
does reason indicate? 9. What is the best answer to all objec 

5. Does prayer, by its direct efficacy, tions on the subject? 


Ch vy.) PRAYER—DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 771 


CHAPTER V. 


PRAYER—SCRIPTURE-VIEW—DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 


No Christian duty is more explicitly and more fully enjoined in 
Seripture than that of prayer. On this subject, we here present a few 
passages from both the Old and the New Testaments. 

In the patriarchal age, it is recorded that “Abraham prayed unto 
God” (Gen. xx. 17), and his prayer was heard. The Prophet Samuel 
said: “Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the 
Lord.” “And Samuel cried unto the Lord for Israel, and the Lord 
heard him.” 1 Sam. vii. 5, 9. Solomon “kneeled down upon his 
knees,” and called upon God in prayer, when he dedicated the temple. 
“And the Lord appeared to Solomon by night, and said unto him, I 
have heard thy prayer, and have chosen this place to myself for a 
house of sacrifice.” 2 Chron. vii. 12. 

Elijah prayed, and God answered his prayer by fire from heaven. 
Ezra “fell upon his knees” in prayer before God; and Nehemiah also 
prayed; and their prayers were answered. David says: “ Evening, and 
morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud; and he shall hear 
my voice.” Ps. lv. 17. Daniel “went into his house; and his windows 
being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his 
knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God.” 
Dan. vi. 10. 

That this duty is expressly enjoined in the New Testament appears 
from the following passages: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, 
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened.” Matt. vii. 7. 
“Watch ye therefore, and pray always.” Luke xxi. 36. “Be careful 
for nothing; but in every thing, by prayer and supplication with thanks- 
giving, let your requests be made known unto God.” Phil. iv. 6. “Pray 
without ceasing.” 1 Thess. v.17. “Men ought always to pray, and 
not to faint.” Luke xviii. 1. St. Paul says: “I will therefore that 
men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubt: 
ing.” 1 Tim. ii. 8. 

Prayer is a part of sacred worship common to all dispensations, and 


172 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. | [P. in. B. 2 


which was not only hallowed by the example of “prophets and right- 
eous men,” but also by that of Christ and his apostles. 

In farther discussion of this subject, we will consider, first, the nature 
of prayer; secondly, the different kinds of prayer. 

I, THE NATURE OF PRAYER. 

According to Webster, “prayer,” in a general sense, is the act of 
asking for a favor, and particularly with earnestness. But “in wor 
ship,” he defines it “as a solemn address to the Supreme Being, consist 
ing of adoration, or an expression of our sense of God’s glorious per 
fections, confession of our sins, supplication for mercy and forgiveness, 
intercession for blessings on others, and thanksgiving, or an expression 
of gratitude, to God for his mercies and benefits.” 

With this general definition before us, which we deem accurate and 
explicit, we proceed to inquire for the elements of acceptable prayer ac- 
cording to the Scriptures. i 

1. Prayer should be offered in humility, This is an essential branch 
of Christian virtue, which was so foreign from the minds of heathen 
philosophers that they had no word which to their minds expressed the 
idea. The word we use for this virtue, to their minds, implied mean- 
ness and baseness of mind. 

But the Bible is very full upon this subject. It is written: “Every 
one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord.” Prov. xvi. 5. 
God saith: “Him that hath a high look and a proud heart will not I 
suffer.” Ps. ci. 5. St. Peter says: “Be clothed with humility; for God 
resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.” 1 Pet. v. 5. Our 
Saviour furnished a beautiful illustration of the grace of humility, 
when he set a little child in the midst of his disciples, saying: “ Who- 
soever, therefore, shall Awmble himself as this little child, the same is 
greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Again, we have another illustra- 
tion of this subject in the commendation of the prayer of the publican, 
who “smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 
I tell you,” said Jesus, “this man went down to his house justified 
rather than the other; for every one that exalteth himself shall be 
abased, and he that Awmbleth himself shall be exalted.” 

From all these scriptures, it appears that an humble spirit is essen 
tial to acceptable prayer. And as prayer is the language of depend: 
ence and helplessness, crying for mercy in the midst of destitution, 
want, affliction, or danger, how incongruous must be a proud or 
haughty spirit in connection with this duty, and how appropriate the 
fecling of deepest humility! 

2, Another element of acceptable prayer is swbhmission, or resignation 


, 


Ch y.] PRAYER—DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 173 


to the divine will, and a cheerful acquiescence in God’s plan of impart- 
ing his blessings. 

In all our prayers, it is either expressed or implied that we ask for 
things according to the will of God, otherwise our petitions will not be 
regarded. A beggar at the feet of his sovereign should not assume the 
attitude of a dictator. In regard to the spiritual blessings of salvation, 
the provisions and promises of the gospel are unrestricted and univer- 
sal ‘All men everywhere” may pray for “all spiritual benediction 
and grace.” And, in this sense, we may intercede “for all men.” 

St. Paul has very forcibly portrayed this fullness of spiritual grace. 
“For this cause,” he says, “I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is 
named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, 
to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that 
Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and 
grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is 
the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love 
of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the 
fullness of God.” What stronger language can be used to express the 
largest possible communication of heavenly grace! But lest something 
veyond what is here expressed might be attainable, and to show that 
here should be no limit to the aspiration of the Christian for spiritual 
plessings, the apostle adds: ‘Now unto him that is able to do exceeding 
abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power 
that worketh in us, unto him be glory in the Church by Christ Jesus, 
throughout all ages, world without end.” Here, to the extent of the 
grace for which the apostle prays, there is no limit, not even the power 
of words to express, nor of thought to conceive, can bound his capa- 
cious desire. And if the apostle would pray for these unutterable 
blessings upon his brethren, it is plainly inferable that they should 
vray for the same things in their own behalf. 

Of similar import are our Saviour’s encouraging words to his disei- 
ples: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the 
Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked noth- 
ing in my name; ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full.” 
John xvi. 23, 24. 

Other scriptures, to the same effect, might be adduced, but these are 
sufficient to show that there should be no limit to the extent of our pe- 
titions for spiritual blessings. Yet we should ever remember that we 
are to ask for all these things only in consistency with God’s prescribed 
method of bestowing them—that is, we may not ask God to change his 


774 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iii. B. 2 


plan, devised in infinite wisdom and goodness, for our individual ae- 
commodation. And he has promised these blessings only to him who 
secks them aright. _ 

The case is different when we pray for temporal mercies. Here God 
has made no unrestricted promise to grant us whatever we may think 
we need, And we have authority for praying for such blessings only 
in submission to the divine will. It is true, God has promised that ‘no 
good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly,” and the 
apostle assures us that “all things work together for good to them that 
love God.” But it must not be forgotten that the divine will, and not 
our own short-sighted wisdom, is to be the judge in the case. God only 
(and not we ourselves) knows what is really “good” for us. We may 
ask for riches, health, prosperity, and peace, but God may see that pov- 
erty, affliction, adversity, and persecution, would be really better for us. 
Therefore, in all our petitions for temporal benefits, our prayers should 
be conditioned and circumscribed by calm and implicit submission to 
the will of God. 

3. Faith is an important element of acceptable prayer. St. Paul has de 
clared: “ Whatsover is not of faith is sin.” Rom. xiv. 23. Our Saviour 
has promised, saying: “All things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, 
believing, ye shall receive.” Matt. xxi. 22. St. James says: “If any 
of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liber. 
ally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask 
in faith, nothing wavering; for he that wavereth is like a wave of the 
sea driven with the wind and tossed.” James i. 5,6. Again, St Paul 
says: “But without fazth it is impossible to please him; for he that 
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of 
them that diligently seek him.” Heb. xi. 6. These scriptures abun- 
dantly establish the position that faith is an essential element of ac- 
ceptable prayer. Indeed, this is a point so fully set forth in the word 
of God that no man, acknowledging the truth of revelation, can for a 
moment dispute it. To exhibit all the proof upon the subject would 
be to transcribe a large portion of the Bible. 

It may be necessary, however, that we examine more particularly 
the elements of that faith which is thus essential to acceptable prayer. 
What kind and what degree of faith does acceptable prayer require? 

(1) It must be, to a certain extent, orthodox in theory. 

This does not imply that our views concerning God and religious 
doctrine must be correct in every minutia. We may embrace many 
errors in our system of religious belief, and yet hold the essential truths: 
yet there are some truths radical in their nature, without a belief’ iz 


Ch. v.] PRKAYER—DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 175 


which we cannot consistently pray for either temporal o1 spiritual 
mercies either for ourselves or in the behalf of others. 

Among the most important of this class of truths is the doctrine of 
divine influence. If this be either discarded or explained away, there 
can be no more sense or propriety in offering prayer to God than if no 
such being existed. A semi-infidel doctrine has long had place in the 
world, the tendency of which is to put God, as it were, out of the world 
which his hand has created, and leave it to its own government and 
control. Like a vessel on the ocean, cut loose from her moorings, and 
without a master, “driven by the winds and tossed,” so some would 
persuade us that God created the world, and cast it forth from his hand 
upon the ocean of time to govern and control itself solely by the 
agency of secondary causes. This pernicious theory has infused its poi- 
son into some of our schools of divinity as well as philosophy. 

The position to which we refer is this: that God, when he created the 
material universe, impressed matter with certain properties and powers 
called “the laws of nature;” and that these Jaws, operating as secondary 
causes, govern the material world without any direct or immediate power 
of the Almighty being exerted or required. This is the philosophical phase 
of the system. When it enters the arena of theology, it takes the fol- 
lowing shape: It assumes that God miraculously inspired the sacred 
penmen to write the Scriptures; but that, since the apostolic age, there 
is no direct or immediate influence of the Holy Spirit on the hearts and 
minds of men, but that the conversion of men, if effected at all, must be 
accomplished by the written word, the Spirit of God exercising no agency 
in the matter whatever, except what arises solely from the fact that the 
Spirit originally dictated that written word. Thus it is that this sys- 
tem, or rather these twin sisters of semi-infidel philosophy and pseudo- 
Christianity, would join hands in putting God both out of the natural 
and of the moral and religious world, leaving the government of the 
natural world to secondary causes through the laws of nature, and the 
gcvernment of the moral or spiritual world to secondary causes through 
the written word. 

According to the theory just explained, we can conceive no propriety 
whatever in prayer. The sole utility of prayer arises from the fact 
that God is supposed to hear and answer our petitions by exerting an 
influence in bestowing blessings upon us, which he would not bestow 
without prayer. Deny that he exerts any such influence, admit that all 
things, both material and immaterial—that is, that the natural things 
pertaining to this world, and the spiritual things pertaining to relig- 
ion—are controlled solely by secondary causes, and in what shape can 


776 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P.ii B 2 


we look for an answer-to our prayers? If God exercises no direct in 
fluence over the affairs of this world, either natural or spiritual, how 
‘aun we pray, “Give us this day our daily bread,” with any more confi- 
dence that we shall obtain that bread than if we were not to pray at 
all? And if nothing can be gained by prayer, wherein consists its pro- 
priety? We can only ask God tor temporal mercies on the supposition 
that he exercises a particular providence over the affairs of this world. 
Deny this, and there would still be reason in our using diligence and 
industry to secure those blessings, but there could be no reason in our 
praying tor them. 

Deny that God by his Holy Spirit operates upon our hearts, except 
indirectly through the word, and how can we pray to him for any spir- 
itual blessing whatever? If there is no direct influence of the Spirit 
on the heart, how can we pray to God for the fruit of the Spirit? We 
pray to God to impart unto us, or to increase within us, “love, joy, 
peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temper- 
ance.” Now these graces, St. Paul tells us, are “the fruit of the Spirit;” 
but if the Spirit only operates through the written word, how do we 
expect it to impart or increase the graces in question? Can there be 
given, upon this hypothesis, any sensible meaning to our prayer? Do 
we expect the Spirit miraculously to multiply Bibles? Even that, ac- 
cording to the theory, it could only do by causing one Bible to produce 
another. If it be said that these fruits of the Spirit are only produced 
by the reading and studying of the Bible, then, we demand, in what 
way does prayer facilitate this process? We pray to God in language 
as though God were listening, and we expected him to answer our 
prayers by a direct influence; but if no such influence is to be realized, 
then the exercise of prayer is worse than silly—it is solemn mockery ! 

But we demand: What sober-minded man can open his Bible, and 
read the history of the many’ prayers of God’s people, and the direct 
answers to them therein recorded, and reconcile the theory we here op- 
pose with the Scripture presentation of the subject? ‘Take but one il- 
lustration among hundreds that might be adduced. Our Saviour, in 
answer to his disciples, who had requested him, saying, “Lord, teach 
us to pray,” among other things, said: “If a son shall ask bread of 
any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, 
will he for a fish give him a serpent? orif he shall ask an egg, will he 
offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good 
gifts unto your children, how much more shal] your heavenly Father 
give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” Luke xi. 11-13. Now, we 
undertake to say that if our blessed Lord did not intend to teach his 


Ch. v.] PRAYER—DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER 77% 


disciples that their heavenly Father would as really hea., and as di 
rectly answer, their prayer, as they would the request of their child ask 
ing for bread, then he intentionally deceived them. The language 
is too pointed and unambiguous to admit of any but one construc- 
tion. Let it be distinctly noted that the Holy Spirit is not here prom- 
ised to those who shal] read, believe, and obey the Scriptures, how- 
ever important these duties are admitted to be, but “to them that ask 
him”—that is, the Holy Spirit is here promised as a gift in direct an- 
swer to prayer. To construe the passage otherwise, is not to interpret, 
but to pervert the inspired word. And to reconcile with this plain con- 
struction of our Saviour’s teachings, the doctrine which denies the di- 
rect influence of the Spirit of God upon the human heart, is simply an 
impossibility; hence we conclude that acceptable prayer must be so 
far orthodox in theory as to recognize the direct influence of the Holy 
Spirit on the human heart. 

(2) This faith also implies a_firm trust_and reliance upon God, that 
through the mediation of Christ he will, according to his promises, be- 
stow upon us the blessings for which we pray. This is implied in the 
passages already presented; and is so abundantly taught in all those 
scriptures which exhibit faith as the condition of justification, and of 
salvation in all its stages, that we deem it useless to dwell upon this 
point, except to present two or three Scripture-testimonies. When the 
two blind men came to Jesus, crying, “Thou Son of David have mercy 
on us,” he “touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it 
unto you.” Matt. ix. 29. Again, Jesus said to one who brought unte 
him his son who had a dumb spirit: “If thou canst believe, all things 
are possible to him that believeth.” Mark ix. 23. These passages 
plainly teach that the answer to prayer is suspended upon the condition 
of implicit faith. When the Ethiopian eunuch demanded baptism of 
Philip, the apostle replied: “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou 
mayest.” Acts viii. 37. And St. Paul says: “ With the heart man be- 
lieveth unto righteousness.” Rom. x. 10. Thus it appears that the 
faith which justifies and saves the soul, and which is necessary to ren- 
der our prayer acceptable to God, implies the ful/ trust and congidence 
of the heart. 

II. We now call attention to the DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 

The most common division of prayer is into ejaculatory, private, jam 
uy, and public. We propose a few remarks upon each separately. 

1. Hjaculatory Prayer,—This is the impromptu aspiration of the 
heart, whether silent or expressed, rising to God in emotions of grate 
ful acknowledgment for mercies received, or petitions for blessings 


178 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (om. B. 2 


needed. In other words, it denotes that fixed devotional frame by 
which a constant spirit of prayer is maintained, and an abiding sense 
of the divine presence and protection preserved. This kind of prayer 
is clearly enjoined by the apostle in his exhortation ‘o “pray without 
ceasing, and in every thing give thanks.” 

As this abiding spirit of prayer is evidence of genuine piety in the 
heart, so it conduces largely to the enjoyment of those who maintain 
it. By habitually staying the soul upon God, it produces a fixed sense 
of his ever-abiding presence and all-sustaining grace; and thus a calm 
composure of spirit and a comfortable assurance of the divine protec- 
tion are secured, and the heart is kept in “perfect peace,” being “stayed 


on the Lord.” 
bey 


This duty is not only sanctioned by the 
example of prophets and apostles, and the most pious in all ages, and 
of Christ himself, but by express precept. Our Lord says, “But thou, 
when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy 
door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which 
seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Matt. vi. 6. 

Perhaps there is no Christian duty the strict and habitual perform- 
ance of which is a surer test of genuine and sincere piety than this. 
Other religious exercises, even family and public prayer, may be at- 

tended to through motives of policy, for the sake of respectability, or 
y to promote the comfort of those about us; but he who habitually bows 

his knees in secret devotion before God must be sincere. And how sub- 
lime the spectacle of a poor dependent worm of earth, shut out from 
the view of every eye but that of God, kneeling in humble pleadings 
for mercy before the great I Am! Upon such a scene angels must 
eaze with delight, and God himself looks down from heaven well 
pleased. 

3. Family P, —An objection has been made to this duty, simply 
on the ground that it is not expressly enjoined in Seriptuae. But every 
honest-minded Christian must admit that what is clearly implied in a 
great Bible-principle, necessarily growing out of it, is possessed of equal 
authority with that which is embodied in express precept. To deny 
this position would introduce fearful confusion and havoc into the sys- 
tem of Christian morals. 


Where is the express precept commanding you to i 
dren, to gi o educational advantag 7ou_¢ 


qualify them for some special calling or profession ? If it be replied 
that nature, reason, and the general obligation to “provide for our own 
household,” imply all these duties, may we not, with even more propr+ 


¥ 


ch. v.] PRAYER—DIVFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 779 


ety, affirm that nature, reason, and the general obligation to “1ule our 
own house well,” and “bring up our children in the nurture and admo 
nition uf the Lord,” require us to set before them the example, and 
favor them with the advantages of family worship? 

It is certain that several of the patriarchs, and probable that all of 
them, adopted household worship. Abraham, Jacob, and Job, offered 
sacrificial worship in their families; and this is one of the most sacred 
forms of ancient worship, deriving its obligation doubtless from the ap. 
pointment of God. Moreover, this duty necessarily grows out of the 
general injunction on parents to attend strictly to the religious instrue- 
tion of their children. If a thorough religious instruction necessarily 
embraces the duty of prayer, which all must admit, if example be an 
important element of successful instruction, and if precept accompanied 
by example be more efficient than precept alone, then it follows that 
the obligation of family prayer is a plain, necessary inference. 

That the careful religious training of children was strictly enjoined 
under both the Mosaic and Christian dispensations, is a position not to 
be doubted. This is manifest from the divine commendation expressed 
of Abraham’s character in this particular. “I know him,” said God, 
“that he will command his children and his household after him, and 
they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.” 
Gen. xviii. 19. It was explicitly enjoined on the people of Israel by 
Moses that they should instruct their children in the precepts of relig- 
ion. “These words,” said he, “which I command thee this day, shall 
be in thy heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy chil- 
dren, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when 
thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou 
risest up.” Deut. vi. 6, 7. 

The duty of family prayer not only arises as a necessary inference 
from the general precepts enjoining the religious instruction of chil- 
dren, but it is clearly inferable from the character of the Christian and 
the constitution of the family. As a Christian, and as the head of a 
household, every man is under obligations to do good to the utmost ex- 
tent of his ability; hence, that we may feel the force of this obligation, 
it is only necessary that we consider its beneficial tendency. It cannot 
be denied that family worship tends not only to preserve in the hearts 
of parents a sense of their obligation to God, and to keep alive the 
flame of devotion, but it contributes greatly to imbue the minds and 
hearts of children with religious knowledge and a reverence for holy 
things. Besides, this constant acknowledgment of God, and our obli 
gations to serve him, secures by promise his gracious regard and pe 


780 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iii, B. % 


culiar favor: “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct 
thy paths.” 

Again, the general promise that “where two or three are gathered 
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” will apply 
with peculiar fitness to family devotion. From all these considerations, 
we conclude that family prayer, though not directly enjoined by ex- 
press precept, is yet a duty so manifest from the general principles of 
the gospel, the character of the Christian, the constitution of the family, 
the benefits it imparts, and the general promises of God, that it must be 
of binding obligation on every Christian who is the head of a house- 
hold. 

4. We now call attention to the subject of public prayer. 

(1) This duty is founded on_express precept, Its scriptural obliga- 
tion is most ample and complete. Our Saviour taught “that men 
ought always to pray.” St. Paul says: “IT exhort therefore, that, first 
of ali, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be 
made for all men.” 1 Tim. ii. 1. That the apostle was here speaking 
of the public services in the Church the context clearly evinces. He 
adds: “I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy 
hands, without wrath and doubting.” 1 Tim. ii. 8. He proceeds im- 
mediately to give instruction concerning the behavior and privileges of 
women in the Church, which abundantly shows that public, and not pri- 
vate, devotion was the subject of discourse. 

(2) This duty is taught by St. Paul 
says: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, 
dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth 
with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head,” ete. 1 Cor, xi. 4, 5. 
Now, the context makes it manifest that the apostle was here speaking 
of “praying and prophesying ” as a public religious exercise ; hence it 
follows, as a necessary inference, that this duty is obligatory on Chris- 
tians of both sexes, for the apostle gives directions as to the proper 
manner of its performance. 

(3) Again, this duty is plainly manifest from the Scripture examples 
on the subject. Public prayer was a part of the Jewish service, under 
he Mosaic economy. That it was regularly performed in the syna- 
gogues, at least from the time of Ezra, is unquestionable. And it was 
sanctioned by our Saviour and his apostles by their frequent attendance 
upon the synagogue, and participation in the services. And it is unde- 
niable that an important part of this service consisted in public prayer. 

(4) The gracious design and—benefits of public worship are obvious 
and important. It calls the people together, and engages the mind and 


Ch. v.] PRAYER—DIFFERENT KINDS OF PRAYER. 781 


heart so as to free them from many snares and temptations to evil to 
which they would otherwise be exposed. It tends to cultivate a more in- 
timate acquaintance with each other among the members of any given 
community, and greatly promotes the social virtues. It brings befure 
the mind the contemplation of the sublime themes of pure religion, 
and elevates the thoughts above the perishing things of earth. It pro- 
motes throughout society good order and morality, refinement and 
virtue. 

This public religious worship adapts its benefits to every conceivable 
case of each individual. It is calculated to impart strength to the 
weak, light to those who are in darkness, consolation to all who are in 
distress, and encouragement to those who are dejected; in a word, it 
preserves a sense of our dependence upon God, and a grateful remem- 
brance of our constant indebtedness to his goodness. 

It tends greatly to promote that kindly emotion and fraternal fellow- 
ship which are characteristic fruits of the gospel. Here, in the assem- 
bly for public prayer, the rich and the poor, the learned and the uncul- 
tivated, all classes in society and all conditions in life, may meet to- 
gether and share the common blessing; here united supplications are 
offered up to the God and Father of all for national and individual 
benefits, and many hearts may unite in the undivided.strain of thanks- 
giving and praise to their common Parent and Bencfactor; here the 
Holy Spirit descends, not now “as a rushing, mighty wind,” in his mi- 
raculous powers, but as the reprover of sin, carrying conviction to the 
heart of the unbeliever, and as the promised Paraclete, comforting the 
mourner and causing the saints to rejoice “with joy unspeakable and 
full of glory ;” and here, in an emphatic sense, “the Lord commands 
the blessing, even life forevermore.” From the commencement of the 
gospel till now, the truly pious have never forgotten the good “word of 
exhortation,” not to “forsake the assembling of themselves together ;” 
and in these assemblies the divine benediction has fallen upon them 
“as the dew that descended on the mountains of Zion.” 


782 ELEMENTS OF 


DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER V. 


Question 1. What scriptures enjoin the | 10. 
duty of prayer? 

2. What is the nature of prayer? 11 

3. What is the first element of accepta- 
ble prayer, and by what scriptures | 12 
is this proved? 

4, The second element, and by what 
scriptures is it proved? 13 

5. What peculiarity should characterize 
our petitions when we pray for tem- 


. What farther element is embraced 
in evangelical faith? “ 

. What different kinds of prayer are 
specified ? 

. What is implied in ejaculatory 
prayer, and by what scripture 
is it enjoined? 

. By whose example, and by what 
scriptures, is private prayer e2- 
joined? 


poral mercies? 14. What objection has been offered to 


6. What scriptures prove that faith is 
essential to acceptable prayer? 

7. In what sense must this faith be or- | 15 
thodox in theory? 

8. What scriptures exhibit direct an-| 16 
swers to prayer? 

9 What scriptures contain promises of 
direct. answers to prayer? 


family prayer, and how is it an- 
swered ? 
. How may the propriety of family 
prayer be proved from Scripture? 
. What scriptures enjoin the duty of 
public prayer? 


Ch. vi.) PRAYER—FORM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 783 


CHAPTER V1. 


PRAYER—FORM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 


Art least ever since the Lutheran Reformation, there has been mech 
controversy in the Church, pro and con, as to the propriety of the use of 
liturgies in public worship. Seldom have any written upon this theme 
without being carried to a partisan extreme, on one side or the other. It 
is true that the advocates of Liturgical worship have generally admitted the 
propriety of extemporaneous prayer, to a limited extent, under certain 
circumstances—and those opposed to liturgies, as the general rule, have 
admitted the propriety of using them, to a limited extent, on some 
special occasions ; but still it must be manifest to the impartial observer, 
if any such can be found, that the disputants on both sides, after hav- 
ing made their admissions, have, as they advanced in the discussion, 
diverged farther and farther from them—the one party seeming to 
perceive nothing but evil in the use of liturgies, and the other party 
seeing only evil resulting from the general plan of extemporaneous 
prayers. A spirit of bigotry and intolerance has been exhibited on 
both sides. We are persuaded there is a medium ground on the sub- 
ject, more consistent with Scripture and with the genius of Christian- 
ity than that which has been occupied by either class of the contro: 
vertists. 

In the first place, it is neither consistent with Scripture, reason, nor 
Christian charity, to denounce all litwrgical public worship as necessarily 
tending to dead formality and the destruction of vital piety in the 
Church; in the second place, it is neither consistent with Scripture, 
reason, nor Christian charity, to denounce the regular practice of extem- 
poraneous prayer as necessarily tending to produce irreverence, disor- 
der, insubordination, instability, heresy, and enthusiasm, in the Church. 
Some of these evils may be more likely to spring up in connection with 
the one plan of worship than the other, but neither plan will secure 
exemption from any of the evils in question; nor will it, necessarily, 
produce any of those evils. Whether the question be examined in the 
light of Scripture, antiquity, reason, common sense, or Christian charity 


784 ELEMENTS OF DIVINTTY. [P. iii, B. 2 


it wil} appear that both methods of worship are right and proper; that 
the ore is preferable on some accounts, and the other on other accounts ; 
and that a judicious blending of the two is better than the exclusive 
use of either. 

I. We examine THE OLD TrsraMEnt on this subject. 

Here we perceive that the public worship of the Jews was neither 
wholly liturgical nor wholly extemporaneous —the two modes were 
blended. 

1. In favor of a prescribed form of worship, it may be said that— 

(1) Immediately after the passage of the Israelites over the Red Sea, 
they celebrated their wonderful deliverance in song, which must have 
been composed for the occasion, and set to music. Moses and the peo- 
ple sang together, and Miriam and her companions responded with the 
timbrel and the dance, using the chorus: “Sing ye to the Lord, for he 
hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into 
the sea.” 

(2) With the Jewish people, much of their public religious service 
was very minutely prescribed. The acts they were to perform, and the 
words they were to use, in various instances, were predrranged and defi- 
nitely appointed. In the sixth chapter of Numbers, Aaron and his sons 
were informed what words they were to use in pronouncing a blessing upon 

‘the people: “The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, . . . On this wise ye 
shall bless the children of Israel, saying unto them, The Lord bless thee 
and keep thee; the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious 
unto thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee 
peace.” At the expiation for uncertain murder, the elders were taught 
to say over the slain heifer a set form of words, thus: “Our hands have 
not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. Be merciful, O Lord, 
unto thy people,” etc. Deut. xxi. 7, 8. 

(3) At the offering of the first-fruits, the Israelites were taught te 
return thanks to God in a set form of words, as prescribed in the 
twenty-sixth chapter of Deuteronomy. 

(4) Just before his death, Moses taught the Israelites a song commem- 
oiative of God’s mercies, requiring them, and their seed after them, to 

use the same for religious service. 

(5) The Jewish rabbis testify that their regular temple service con- 
sisted of three parts—viz., sacrifices, liturgical compositions, and psalms, 
The book of Psalms itself bears internal evidence that it consists, in 
part, of forms of prayer, of thanksgiving, and praise, for the public 
worship of God; and that certain Psalms were to be used on specific 
days, their very titles testify. In the twenty-ninth chapter of Second 


Ch. vi.] PRAYER—PFORM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 785 


Chronicles, Hezekiah the king “¢ommanded the Levites to sing praise 
unto the Lord, with the words of David and of Asaph the seer; and 
they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and wor- 
shiped.” 

(6) Maimonides, a learned rabbi, says: “Ezra composed eighteen 
forms of prayer, which were enjoined by the great council, that every 
man might have them in his mouth and be perfect in them, and that 
thereby the prayers of the rude and ignorant might be as complete as 
those of a more eloquent tongue.” These prayers have all been trans- 
lated by Dr. Prideaux, and are to be found in his “Connection of Serip- 
ture History.” 

(7) That the synagogue-worship of the Jews was to a great extent 
liturgical, consisting mainly of forms of prayer and praise, reading the 
Scriptures and commenting upon the text, is a matter which, we believe, 
is not disputed. We therefore conclude that forms of prayer, to some 
extent, were divinely authorized in the public worship which God_pre- 
scribed for the Jewish people. 

2. Extemporaneous Worship. : 

(1) Where can we find the evidence that God interdicted, under the 
Old Testament economy, the use of extemporaneous prayer ? Although 
that was peculiarly a dispensation of forms and ceremonies, types and 
symbols, as compared with the more spiritual worship of the new dis- 
pensation, yet, even then, where are prescribed the restrictive statutes? 
where are the pains and penalties, the disabilities, censures, or excom- 
munications, to be incurred by all who dared to deviate from a pre- 
scribed rubric in the public service, either by introducing a psalm not 
specially designated, or praying extemporaneously (as Justin Martyr 
says the early Christians did) “according to their ability” ? 

(2) Again, have we not the most indubitable evidence that prophets 
and holy men of God, in those olden times, often prayed extempora- 
neously, both in their private and public services? When Elijah bowed 
in prayer to God, in the face of all Israel assembled to witness the 
contest between the true prophet of Jehovah and the false prophet of 
Baal, he offered up a public prayer that had never been heard before. 
When Solomon “ kneeled down upon his knees,” and prayed in presence 
of the whole nation at the dedication of the temple, he offered up a 
prayer unknown to any prescribed liturgy. Our conclusion, there- 
fore, from the Old Testament authority, is, that while a liturgical ser- 
vice was evidently sanctioned and to some extent adopted in the 
Jewish Church, yet there is no evidence that extemporaneous prayers 
were not allowed. On the contrary, there is clear proof that such 

50 


186 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [F. in. B. 2 


prayers were frequently offered, not only in private, but in public assem- 
blies, 

{I. We now pass to the examination of rae New TESTAMENT TEACH 
INGS ON THIS SUBJECT. 

Many have supposed that there is no authority for forms of prayer ir 
the New Testament; but this is certainly a wrong conclusion. 

1. Were there no other allusion to this subject, it is evident that 
forms of prayer are right and proper, as appears from the following 
passage: One of the disciples said unto Jesus, “I ord, teach us to pray, 
as John also taught his disciples.” Here we see that John, the greatest 
of all the prophets, taught his disciples a form of prayer. Had this 
mode of worship been improper, under the gospel dispensation, this was 
the time and place for our Saviour to communicate that important faet f 
But did he do it? He did the very opposite. His words are: “When 
ye pray, say, Our Father who art in heaven,” etc—prescribing an ex- 
plicit form—teaching them the very words to be used. 

Because, according to one of the evangelists, our Saviour said, “A fter 
. this manner therefore pray ye,” some have supposed that Christ did not 
intend to furnish a form, but merely an outline model of prayer. But 
this is interpreting Scripture, not according to its plain, unsophisticated 
import, but merely to uphold a theory. The truth is, he here furnished 
his disciples a form, according to the language of one evangelist, and a 
model, according to another. Both evangelists were right; for he gave 
both a form and a model. Hence, as he gave them a form, liturgical 
worship is right; and, as he gave a model, extemporaneous worship is 
right; so that we here have divine authority for both modes of worship, 
and consequently neither should be interdicted, but every worshiper 
should be left by the Church in all ages in the enjoyment of all that 
liberty in the possession of which he was left by our Lord himself, 

Again, we have not only divine precept for forms of prayer, as just 
shown, but we have satisfactory evidence that this mode of worship was 
sanctioned by the example of our Lord and his apostles, 

That the worship conducted in the Jewish temple and synagogues, at 
the time of Christ and his apostles, was mainly liturgical, will not be 
disputed. It is most evident that Christ and his apostles frequently 
participated in that service. Now, if they had considered that mode 
‘f worship improper, would they not have expressed their disapproba- 
tion? But He who drove out from the temple “the money-changers,” 
and so frequently and so pointedly reproved the scribes and Pharisees, 
and rulers of the Jews, for their hypocrisies and various perversions of 
the Mosaic law. never uttered the first word of censure in reference to 


Cb vi.) PRAYER—FORM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 737 


the liturgy of the temple or the synagogues; nor is there to be found 
in the writings of the apostles any thing expressing disapprobation of 
that mode of worship. 

Add to this the fact that our Saviour was a regular attendant on the 
Jewish services, that on all the great festival occasions he repaired to 
Jerusalem to worship, that Sabbath after Sabbath he filled his place 
in the synagogues, and that his watchful enemies, ever eager to find 
ground of accusation against him, never charged him with disrespect 
to the public services of religion. Now,if he had spoken against them, 
or refused to participate in them, on the ground that portions of those 
services were liturgical, would they have passed it by in silence? And 
if he regularly participated in them, without a single expression of dis- 
approbation, did he not affix to that form of worship the seal of his 
approval? The hymn he sang at the institution of the Holy Supper, 
and his solemn exclamation on the cross, “My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me?” were both precomposed forms taken from the 
Psalms. 

The apostles were all brought up in the services of the Jewish relig- 
ion; and, even after they had established the Christian Church, we find 
them, as well as many of the first Christians, continuing “daily with 
one accord in the temple.” Acts ii. 46. St. Paul, after his conversion, 
“prayed in the temple,” as he had been accustomed to do; and, a 
quarter of a century after the crucifixion of our Lord, we find the same 
apostle going “up to Jerusalem to worship.” From all which we con- 
clude that forms of prayer are authorized by the teachings and example 
of Christ and his apostles, 

2. But we next inquire, What can be said, from the New Testament 
testimony, in favor of eatemporaneous worship? Having seen from the 
example of Christ and his apostles, as also from the fact that our Sav- 
iour taught his disciples a form of prayer, that worship performed in a 
precomposed liturgy is acceptable to God, are we therefore to conclude 
that extemporaneous worship, whether public or private, is either unau- 
thorized or improper? Is there such contrariety between the two modes, 
that, if the one be authorized and proper, the other must necessarily be 
without authority and improper? Such has been the hasty conclusion 
and partisan position of too many. But is it scriptural? Suppose our 
Saviour did teach his disciples a form of prayer, does it thence follow 
that they are to be restricted to that, or any other, predirranged form ? 

Are there not numerous examples of acceptable prayer recorded in 
the New Testament, when no set form was used? Look at the poor 
publican, smiting upon his breast, and crying, “God be merciful to me 


785 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. niBea 


asinner.” Was he only repeating what he had memorized from a prayer- 
book? Look at Peter, crying, “ Lord, save me.” Look at the twe 
blind men, crying, “Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.” 
Were all these, and numerous other such examples that might be given 
precomposed prayers? Were they not rather the impromptu effusion >f 
the heart? Our Saviour promised that the Father would “give the 
Holy Spirit to them that ask him;” but did he give them a prescribed 
form of words in which to offer the prayer? 

Again, in that longest of our Lord’s prayers upon record (John xvii.), 
from what prearranged liturgy did he derive the form? In that prayer- 
meeting, held by a hundred and twenty disciples in an upper chamber 
at Jerusalem, they prayed without a preiérranged form (Acts i. 14-24). 
When Paul instructed Timothy concerning the various classes of per- 
sons for whom prayers should be made, though manifestly referring to 
public worship in the Church, he never hinted that a set form of words 
should be used (1 Tim. ii.); and in all his remarks concerning the 
praying of men and women, with their heads covered or uncovered, he 
gives no intimation concerning a set formula of words. The whole 
context shows, not only that these prayers were public—in the Church— 
but that they were extemporaneous. Again, in his affecting farewell 
interview with the Ephecian elders, when Paul “kneeled down and 
prayed with them all,” no rational mind can believe that his prayer 
was taken from a liturgy. 

Now, we demand, Is it not undeniable, from the Scripture-view we 
have exhibited, that both liturgical and extemporaneous forms of wor- 
ship are divinely authorized, and that, not only in reference to private 
devotion, but public service? And if so, what is the necessary infer- 
ence—what is the conclusion, in view of Scripture, reason, expediency, 
Christian charity, common sense, and every consideration by which the 
Christian mind should be swayed—but that both modes are right and 
proper? <A judicious combination of the two is better than the exclu- 
sive use of either. 

But a more important inference from the whole subject is, that as 
the Scriptures have sanctioned, both by precept and example, both 
plans of worship, without enjoining either to the exclusion of the other, 
leaving every Christian in the possession of perfect liberty on the sub 
ject, so no Church-authority, whether it be council, convention, confer- 
ence, synod, or presbytery, may rightfully deprive Christians of that 
‘liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free.” 

There are attractions in the admirable liturgy of the Church of Eng- 
land which it were an offense against refined taste and genuine piety not 


Ca. vi.] PRAYER—FORM OF PUBLIC WORSIILP. (30 


to admit And “our hearts should burn within us, and our kindling 
faith and swelling joy take wings on high, as, joining in the prayers and 
praises, the chants and songs, of the Church, we remember that we now 
worship God in many of the same words that once rung throug . the 
carved temple from the fired tongues of David and Isaiah, of Paul and 
John—in the same strains that were poured forth by the goodly fel- 
lowship of the prophets, by the glorious company of the apostles, by 
the noble army of martyrs, and by the holy apostolic Church through- 
out all the worid.” 

But much as that or any other liturgy may be admired, and great as 
may be its excellences, still it is not divinely enjoined; and for any 
merely human and uninspired body of men, by canon or edict, to ren- 
der it binding upon the Church to conform to its rubrics, in all their 
minutia and to all the extent of that extended service, and that, too, 
to the exclusion of extemporaneous prayer, must be considered a usur- 
pation of prerogative. It is separating extemporaneous worship from 
liturgical, which God hath joined together—it is “ teaching for doctrines 
the commandments of men”—it raises an insurmountable obstacle in 
the way of general Christian union. No Christian organization has the 
right, especially when claiming to be emphatically THE Church, and 
urging that all Christians ought to unite in their organization, to re- 
quire, as an indispensable condition of the proposed fellowship, con- 
formity to a canon which excludes from the general public worship of 
God either liturgical or extemporaneous prayer. To do so is, while 
pleading for union, to adopt most effectual measures to prevent it. 

How excellent a grace is charity! and how indispensable its largest 
exercise to the promotion of that Christian unity for which the Saviour 
so devoutly prayed! But in no part of religion is charity more essen- 
tial than in connection with public worship. Here all classes—the 
clergy and the laity, the learned and the ignorant—-should meet on a 
common level; hence, in this department especially, nothing should 
be made authoritatively binding in the Church except what is clearly 
placed on a similar footing in the Scriptures. 

In matters depending on mere expediency, the Church may be allowed, 
in her ecclesiastical regulations, to enjoin many things for the sake of 
uniformity; but she has no proper authority to require, as an indispen- 
sable term of communion, what God has not required. This general 
principle may be violated, either by requiring more than God has re- 
quired, or by prohibiting what God has allowed. Thus, for the Church 
to require, as a term of communion, that we offer our devotions in Latin, 
would be a usurpation, because it would be resjuiring more than God 


TYU ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (V’. ui. B. 2 


has required ; but for the Church, as a term of communion, to prohibit 
prayer being offered in English, would be a usurpation, because it 
would be prohibiting what God has allowed. On the same principle 
of reasoning, for the Church, as a term of communion, to require that 
we regularly worship God in the public congregation in the liturgical 
form only, or exclusively in the extemporaneous form, would be a usur- 
pation, because it would be requiring more than God has required; but 
for the Church to prohibit, as a term of communion, public worship in the 
liturgical form, or to prohibit it in the extemporaneous form, would be 
a usurpation, because it would be prohibiting what God has allowed. 

If it be sai? in reply to this reasoning, that the Church may require, 
as a condition of membership in connection with its own denomina- 
tional organization, more than it would have a right to require as a 
term of Christian communion—to this we reply, that, by so doing, she 
admits that she is constituted on principles essentially different from 
those on which the original Church of Christ was founded, and that, in 
that respect, her constitution is unscriptural. Farther, whenever we 
admit that we require, as a condition of membership in our denomina- 
tional organization, what we could not of right require as a term of 
Christian communion, we thereby effectually repudiate all claim to 
be THE Church of Christ, with whose denominational connection it is 
the duty of all Christians in the land to unite. 

It matters not whether it be a particular mode of baptism or a par- 
ticular form of public service which we require as an essential condition 
of full membership in our ecclesiastical organization—-if it be more than 
we dare claim as an absolute term of Christian communion, the admis- 
sion of this fact overturns all the proud claims we might urge as being 
THE Church with which it is the duty of all to unite. This admission 
demonstrates that we do not occupy a platform from which we may 
consistently call upon all others to rally to our standard. It proves 
that, however illustrious the line through which we may trace our 
descent, nevertheless we now occupy a sectarian basis. 

The plain truth on the subject is, that the Scriptures abundantly 
authorize both the liturgical and the extemporaneous modes of public 
worship. Both methods have their advantages and their disadvantages. 
A judicious blending of the two is more in accordance with Scripture, 
antiquity, and reason, than a rigid adherence to either, to the exclusion 
of the other. Hence we conclude that, as God has sanetioned both, 
and left all at liberty to use them at discretion, this liberty cannot be 
restricted or destroyed without violating the great principles of Chris 
tian charity and laying the foundation for schism. 


On. vi.) PRAYER—FORM OF PUBLIC WORSHIP. 79) 


It is to be lamented that some, who are the loudest in their pleadings 
for that great and glorious unity of “all who profess and call themselves 
Christians,” for which our Saviour so earnestly prayed, are the greatest 
sticklers for mere modes and forms, and the first to erect effectual bar- 
riers in the way of that unity they profess so much to desire. Let 
these unscriptural principles and practices tending direct] y to sectarian 
exclusiveness, whether connected with the mode of worship, of baptism, 
of ordination, or of whatever else, which have so long kept asunder 
those whom God originally joined together, be at once and forever aban- 
doned, and soon “there shall be one fold and one Shepherd.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VI. 


Question 1. What has characterized the| 7. Can we require as a condition of 


controversy as to the form of membership, what the Scriptures do 
prayer? not authorize as a term of commun- 
2. What has been generally admitted ion, without encouraging schism ? 
on both sides of the question ? 8. What are the main advantages and 
3. Which do the Scriptures sanction, lit- disadvantages of liturgical worship? 


urgical or extemporaneous worship?| 9. What of extemporaneous worship? 
4. Which of these modes of worship did | 10. What would be preferable to the 


the Jews practice? practice of either mode, to the 
5. Which of these modes of worship is exclusion of the other? 

sanctioned by the New Testament?| 11. What great barrier to Christian 
8 Do both Testaments sanction both union has been erected in connec- 


modes of worship? tion with this subject? 


192 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iti, B.S 


CHAPTER VII. 


THE SABBATH—ITS ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY. 


In considering our duty to God, we next call attention to the institu. 
tion of the SABBATH, or, as styled under the Christian economy, the 
Lord’s-day. 

Theologians have differed greatly in their views concerning the Sab- 
bath. Some have considered it only a positive duty, others a moral 
duty, and others still a mixed duty —both positive and moral. These 
diversities of sentiment will be considered in our examination of the 
subject. 

I. ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY OF THE SABBATH. 

Before we inquire directly soncerning the origin of the Sabbath, we 
deem it proper to call attention to the distinction between a moral and 
a positive precept. We do this in the language of Bishop Butler, thus: 
“Moral precepts are those, the reasons of which we see; positive pre 
cepts are those, the reasons of which we do not see. Moral duties arise 
out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external command ; positive 
duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but from external 
command; nor would they be duties at all, were it not for such com- 
mand received from Him whose creatures and subjects we are.” 

1. We maintain the perpetual obligation of the Sabbath from the fact 
that it is properly a moral, instead of a positive duty. We know that 
some have contended that this duty depends entirely upon positive pre- 
cepts for its existence, and that therefore, as there is no express precept 
to that effect, the obligation to observe it cannot be perpetual. 

Others have considered the obligations of the Sabbath of a mixed 
nature, depending partly on moral, and partly on positive precepts; but, 
notwithstanding the great names that have been enrolled in favor of 
both these positions, we must consider them erroneous. We think they 
have been taken in haste, and have led to very pernicious results Had 
not the admission first been made that the obligation i* not wholly 
moral, but of a mixed nature—partly moral and partly positive—it is 
hardly probable that the perpetuity of this obligation woula ever have 


Ch. vii, © THE SABBATH—ITS ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY. 793 


been questioned by such men as Dr. Paley. It is much to be regretted 
that a work so ably written as this author’s “ Moral and Political Phi- 
losophy,” and one so admirably adapted, in many respects, to fill the 
place it has so generally oecupied as a text book in our colleges, is so 
exceedingly heterodox on the important subject of the Sabbath. We 
think the tw» positions, that the obligation of the Sabbath is not wholly 
moral, and that it is not perpetual, are connatural, and that Dr. Paley 
never would have adopted the /atter but for the general admission of the 
former. 

We freely admit that, when the Sabbath became connected with the 
Mosaic cerem_nial law, numerous minute appendages, by specific enact- 
ment, were connected with it; but these appendages were merely adyen- 
titious —they did not constitute its essence. The Sabbath derived 
not its being from them—it existed anterior to and independent of 
them. Of course, as it did not derive its existence from them, it cannot 
be dependent upon their continuance for its perpetuity. These append- 
ages are positive and not moral duties; but the Sabbath itself, whose 
essential nature lies deeper than adventitious circumstances, and whose 
origin dates anterior to all such appendages, is a moral duty. It is true 
that, in the absence of external precept, we might not have been able 
either to discover or comprehend the nature of this duty; but the same 
may be said of other commandments of the Decalogue. That a duty 
nay be properly embraced under the head of moral, in contradistinction 
from positive, precept, it is not necessary that it be actually discoverable 
by human reason; all that is requisite to this is, that, when revealed 
and explained, we may be able to perceive, in the nature and fitness of 
things, to some extent, the reasonableness and propriety of the duty in 
question. 

Now, that the observance of the Sabbath is a duty which, when pre- 
scribed and understood, commends itself to the understanding of every 
right-minded person as reasonable and proper, must be admitted. What 
position can be plainer than this, that a portion of time is necessary to 
man as a periodical cessation from toil? And is it not equally obvious 
that this sacred rest-day is necessary to man, as furnishing one day for 
levotional exercises after siz days of labor? How admirably is this 
hallowed institution calculated, not only to preserve in the heart of man 
a grateful remembrance of the wonderful creative acts of God, but 
also to secure to him the benefits resulting from a periodical consecra: 
tion of a due proportion of time to devotional exercises! 

If it be true then, that, in the very nature and fitness of things, the 
proportion of one day out of seven is needful for man as a respite from 


194 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, [P. iii. B. 2. 


labor, and also for the performance of that religious service we owe ta 
God, and which is necessary that we may maintain that communion 
with God so essential to our religious welfare and happiness, then it fol- 
lows that this institution is grounded on a great moral reason, and con- 
sequently is as really a.moral duty as that enjoined in any one of the 
Ten Commandments; and, being a moral duty, the perpetuity of its 
obligation results as a necessary sequence. 

2. Again, the perpetuity of the Sabbath is clearly inferable from the 
history of its origin. On this subject we read as follows: “And on the 
seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on 
the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God 
blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had 
rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. ii. 2, 3. 

The plain, natural construction of the language here employed, im 
plies that the seventh day on which God rested was a literal day, such 
as cach of the siz preceding days had been; and that it was the next 
day to the sizth in immediate succession, And as God then rested upon 
the seventh day, and as the fact of his thus resting is given as a reason 
why he “blessed and sanctified” that day, the plain inference is, that the 
consecration of the day commenced simultaneously with the reason upon 
which it was founded. As it was the first seventh day, coming next 
after the six days of his creative work, on which he rested, so it was that 
seventh day which he consecrated, and at that time he performed the 
act of consecration, 

The reason given, as well as the plain narrative style in which the 
facts are recorded, forbid the supposition that the inspired writer only 
intended to convey the idea that God, some centuries afterward, would 
set apart some other seventh day in commemoration of the rest which 
then took place. If the day was then spoken of’ as being “sanctified” 
by way of prolepsis, though not then actually set apart, why may we 
not affirm also that the prolepsis applies equally to the fact of God’s 
resting, and conclude that this did not really begin till the lapse of 
centuries, when the day was actually sanctified? There is as much 
reason to suppose a prolepsis in reference to the one as the other. The 
truth is, there is not the slightest ground for such an hypothesis in either 
ease. We are compelled to view this proleptical construction as a 
groundless, unwarranted, and gratuitous subterfuge, invented to sustain 
the theory which denies the perpetuity of the Sabbath; but a con- 
struction so unnatural and far-fetched can never be rendered plausible, 
even by the sanction of such authority as that of Dr. Paley. The 
alain truth is, the siz days of work connect immediately with the seventh 


Ch. vii. THE SABLATH—IIS ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY. 795 


day of rest, and that day of rest connects as closely with its consecras 
tion, as such, as the cause with the effect. 

If then, as we are bound to conclude, the Sabbath originated at the e 
birth of creation, when as yet none but the then happy pair existed— 
and if it be farther remembered that, as our Saviour BBY “The Sab: 
bath was_made_for and_not_man_for abbath”—are we not 
riven to the conclusion that it is a duty of permanent and universal 
obligation? It was given to him who was the great federal head and 
representative of his race. In him were then included his entire prog- 
eny. Nota single reason then existed, rendering this institution appro- 
priate and beneficial to him, that does not exist as fully in reference to 
the entire race, ‘ all ages and in all dispensations. If it be commemo- 
rative of the wisdom, power, and goodness of God, shown in the works 
of his hand, in what part, or in what age, of the world can a human 
being be found not equally bound with Adam to adore and “ praise the 
Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of 
men”? If it be needed as a period of respite from the toils of life, 
what nation or people, at any period in the world’s history, has not 
needed this day of rest as much as the original dresser of the garden 
of Eden? If it be considered a day sacred to the performance of re- 
ligious devotion, is it not alike appropriate to all mankind at all times 
and places? 

Again, if the observance of the Sabbath be not of universal and 
perpetual obligation, with what propriety could our Saviour have said, 
“The Sabbath was made for man”? He did not say it was made for 
the patriarch, nor for the Jew, nor for the Greek, but “for MAN” —that 
is, for the entire race. 

3. Its recognition in the wilderness furnishes additional evidence of its 
prior existence and of its perpetuity. The account is thus recorded 
“And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as 
much bread, two omers 1yr one man; and all the rulers of the congre 
gation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that 
which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath 
unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that ye 
will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept 
until the morning. And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses 
bade; and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And 
Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord: 
to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but 
en the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none 
And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the 


796 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ini. B. 2 


seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said 
unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my 
laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he 
giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days: abide ye every man 
in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day, So the 
people rested on the seventh day.” Ex. xvi. 22-30. 

Some who favor the theory that the observance of the Sabbath is not 
a duty of universal and perpetual obligation, in order to neutralize the 
force of the argument against their view of the subject, arising from 
the fact that the Sabbath originated at the birth of creation, contend 
that the passage just quoted is a record of the origin of the institution, 
This is the ground taken by Dr. Paley, and, we believe, by all who 
view the Sabbath as a local and temporary institution ; but we think 
their theory most obviously untenable. 

(1) It is inconsistent with the record of the origin of the Sabbath as 
detailed in the second chapter of Genesis. This has already been shown ; 
and no proleptical construction can relieve the theory of its antagonism 
to the Mosaic history of creation. 

(2) It is irreconcilable with the most natural interpretation of the 
language just cited, as used by Moses in the wilderness. Observe, 
Moses does not here speak of the Sabbath as of a new arrangement un- 
heard of till that hour. He does not say, “ Behold, I have now author- 
ity from God to ordain and establish the Sabbath ;” but he refers to it 
as a matter with which they were familiar. His language is: “This is 
that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sab- 
bath.” He does not say, “ This accords with what the Lord now says ;” 
but his words are, “hath said,” as of something past, to which he was 
calling their attention by way of remembrance. He doves not say, “ To- 
morrow shall be the Sabbath,” as if he was issuing a new order; but, 
“To-morrow is the Sabbath,” as though speaking of an institution 
already existing. 

Again he repeats, “On the seventh day, which 7s (not shall be) the 
Sabbath.” But again, the Lord reproves the people, through Moses, for 
having long neglected to keep his commandments, and gives their neg- 
lect of the Sabbath as an illustration. How can the supposition, that 
the law of the Sabbath was then for the first time enjoined, be recon- 
ciled with this charge of long neglect? The language of God to Moses 
was: “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? 
See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath,” ete. 

The position taken by Dr. Paley and others, that the Sabbath was 
not instituted at the creation, is not only encumbered by all the difficul- 


Ch. vii.) THE SABBATH—ITS ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY. 797 


ties to which we have referred, but it has no sulid basis for its st. pport. 
It is true Dr. Paley asserts that in the passage just quoted from the 
sixteenth chapter of Exodus, there is no “intimation that the Sabbath, 
when appointed to be observed, was only the revival of an ancient insti- 
tution which had been neglected, forgotten, or suspended.” In reply 
to this, we remark, that it is not admitted that the “ancient institution” 
had been either “forgotten or suspended ;” but is it not plain that there 
is an express charge here preferred against the people, as we have 
already shown, of long neglect of God’s commandments respecting the 
Sabbath? We think the passage in question, notwithstanding the asser- 
tion of Dr. Paley, does contain very clear evidence that the transaction 
in the wilderness referred to, was not the setting up of a new, but the 
recognition of an old, institution, which had been partially neglected. 

Dr. Paley farther urges his plea against the origin of the Sabbath at 
the creation, from the fact that there is no express mention of the Sab- 
bath during the patriarchal age. Admit his premises, and his conclu- 
sion will not follow. Is it a necessary consequence, that, because the 
Sabbath was not expressly named during the patriarchal age, therefore 
it did not exist? Surely not. The Sabbath is not named in the books 
of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, or the first book 
of Kings; yet no one doubts its existence during all the period eim- 
‘raced in these histories. No one doubts that circumcision was regu. 
iarly practiced by the Jews from Abraham to Christ; and yet there is 
not an instance of it on record, from their first settlement in Canaan 
till the days of John the Baptist. Dr. Paley’s argument would prove 
that during this long period that institution was extinct. It proves 
too much, and therefore nothing at all. 

But if there is no express mention of the Sabbath during the patri- 
archal age, we find in that period several allusions to the division of 
time into weeks, Unless this division of days into weeks originated, 
and was perpetuated, in connection with the Sabbath, how can we ac- 
count for its origin? The division of time into days, months, and years, 
fiids the analogy upon which it is founded in the phenomena pertaining 
to the heavenly bodies; but, in all nature, what is there to suggest the 
idea of dividing days by the number seven? The most natural con- 
clusion is, that it originated in the beginning by the appointment of 
God in connection with the Sabbath; and as the reckoning of time 
by weeks was common during the patriarchal age, we cannot, without 
adopting an arbitrary mode of construction, suppose that the Sabbath 
was not also remembered as the seventh day of the week. 

4. The fact that the observance of the Sabbath was recorded as one o 


(98 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ni. B. a 


the commandments of the Decalogue, furnishes the most conclusive evi 
dence of the perpetuity and universality of this obligation. 

As the fourth and last commandment on the first of the two tables 
of stone, we find, written by the finger of God, the following words: 
“Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou 
labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the 
Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor 
thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, 
nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord 
made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the 
seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed 
ie Exuxxed—li. 

The proof of the point in hand, arising from the fact here unfolded, 
is overwhelmingly conclusive. 

(1) The observance of the Sabbath is here plainly shown to be 
moral duty. If not, why should it thus be embraced as one of the Ten 
Commandments, when the other nine are all admitted to be moral pre 
cepts of perpetual and universal obligation? Is not the fact that these 
ten precepts were engraven by “the finger of God” upon “the tables 
of stone,” when no other portion of the Mosaic system was thus recorded, 
an indication, in that typical dispensation, that they were all to be 
viewed as of more permanent and universal obligation than the other 
portions of the Jewish economy? And if so, how can we suppose that 
one of these precepts was only a positive enactment, destined to pass 
away with the rites and ceremonies of the Levitical economy? 

(2) The terms here used in recording this commandment show that tt, 
especially, was no new statute, now for the first time revealed. Moses 
does not write, “There shall be a Sabbath-day,” but, “Remember the Sab- 
hath-day ”—implying that he was reiterating and placing in a new and 
permanent form, and enforcing, under circumstances of a more awful 
solemnity, a precept with which that people were already familiar. 

If it be said that the allusion to the previous existence of the Sab- 
bath, here implied in the word “remember,” was to the transaction in 
connection with the manna referred to in the sixteenth chapter of 
Exodus, we reply, that any such hypothesis is contradicted by the lan- 
guage of the Decalogue itself. That record connects the Sabbath, not 
with the transaction in the wilderness, but with the origin of the institution 
at the creation. The reason here given for the remembrance and observ- 
ance of the Sabbath, is the same given at the creation for its original 
appointment— For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the 
vea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the 


Ch. vii.] THE SABBATH— (TS ORIGIN AND PERPETUITY. 799 


Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.” Observe, it is not here 
said, “The Lord now blesseth, or, in the wilderness, blessed the Sabbath- 
day ;” but, “The Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it”— 
that is, in connection with his resting, and for that reason he “ blessed,” 
sanctified, hallowed, or set apart, the Sabbath or seventh day to a sacred 
use. And as the consecration of the day, both in the second chapter 
of Genesis and the twentieth chapter of Exodus, is immediately con- 
nected with God’s resting, as though simultaneous, for us, without author 
ity, to tear them asunder, by interposing between them some thousands 
of years, is not to expound, but to pervert the Scriptures. 

(3) We think our Saviour’s comment on the Decalogue, with all who 
ure disposed to submit to the decision of the great Teacher, must set 
this question at rest. 

The question was asked our Saviour, with evident reference to the 
Decalogue, “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus 
replied: “Thou shalt love t 
with all thy soul, and with : i Fhis_is lnst_s 
commandment” — that is, this comprehends th : ‘ 
course, the Sabbath. Then, after having comprised the second table in 
the words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” he adds: “On 
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 
xxii, 36-40. 

Now let it be admitted, which, we think, none will dispute—1. That 
the Ten Commandments are the law here referred to; 2. That our Say- 
iour here intended to give an epitome of the Decalogue—admit. these 
two positions, then the argument here furnished for the perpetuity 
and universality of the obligations of the Sabbath is plain and short 
It runs thus: The obligation to “love God with all the heart, and with 
all the soul, and with all the mind,” is perpetual and universal; but thie 
includes the observance of the Sabbath—therefore the obligation to observe 
the Sabbath is perpetual and universal. ‘To the same effect we may rea 
son from our premises, thus: To “love God with all the heart,” ete., 
is a moral, and not a positive, duty; but the observance of the Sabbath is 
included in “loving God with all the heart,” ete.—therefore the observ- 
ance of the Sabbath is a moral, and not a. positive, duty. Again, the obli- 
gation of all moral duty is perpetual and universal; but the observance of 
the Sabbath is a moral duty—therefore the obligation to observe the Sab- 
bath is perpetual and universal. 

(4) Our Saviour and his apostles have given testimony in favor of 
the perpetuity and universality of the obligation of the Sabbath, by 
teaching the perpetuity of the moral law. 


a 


800 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P iii. B, 2 


In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ says: “Think not that Iam 
come to destroy the law or the prophets: Iam not come to destroy, 
but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, 
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be ful- 
filled.” Matt. v.17, 18. Now, to suppose that any portion of the moral 
law, as given by Moses, is abrogated by the gospel, is not only to assume 
a position gratuitously without a syllable of authority, but in direct 
opposition to these words of the Saviour.. Let the law here be taken 
in its widest sense, embracing both the ceremonial and moral depart- 
ments, which is unquestionably the true interpretation, and how ean 
the abrogation of the Sabbath be consistent with our Saviour’s declara- 
tion? Types, shadows, and ceremonies, may pass away—yea, they did 
pass away—by receiving their fulfillment in Christ; but how could the 
Sabbath thus pass away? If we say that any one of the Ten Com- 
mandments passed away by being fulfilled in Christ, why not another? 
Why not the whole Decalogue? If Christ has wholly fulfilled the 
fourth commandment, why not all the rest? Did he not fulfill the 
whole moral law as really and fully as he did any portion of it?) A 
type may be completely fulfilled by the coming of the antitype—a 
shadow by the revealment of the substance, a ceremony by the mani- 
festation of “some better thing”—but a moral law can only be com- 
pletely fulfilled by its perpetual and universal observance. Hence, as 
the moral law, of which the Sabbath has been shown to be a part, can 
never receive its complete fulfillment while a human being is left upon 
earth to observe it, so the obligation of the Sabbath, according to Christ’s 
declaration, can never be annulled. 

Equally explicit is the testimony of St. Paul upon this subject. He 
asks: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid. 
Yea, we establish the law.” . That the apostle here spoke of the Deca- 
logue, or moral law, there can be no question. In continuation of his 
argument, he says: “I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had 
not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (See 
Rom. iii. 31; vii. 7.) Here the apostle, by directly quoting one of 
the Ten Commandments, shows conclusively that he referred to the 
moral, and not the ceremonial, law. Hence, as he does not “make void,” 
but establishes this law, and as the Sabbath is one portion of it, it neces- 
sarily follows that the obligation to observe this precept exists under the 
gospel, and, if so, this obligation must be perpetual and universal. 

Thus we conclude that, as the Sabbath is a moral duty, as it origi- 
nated at the birth of creation, as it was made for man in general, as it 
was recoonized in the wilderness as a previously known institution. as it 


——— 


/ 


2. 


Ch. vii] 


THE SABBATH—ITS 


ORIGIN 


AND PERPETUITY. SOT 


is embraced as a part of the Decalogue, or moral law, and as this moral 
law is recognized by Christ and his apostles as authoritative under the 
gospel, therefore this institution is of perpetual and universal obligation. 


3. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VII. 


UEsTION J. How have theologians dif- 


fered in their views concerning the 
Sabbath? 

What is the distinction between a 
moral and a positive duty ? 

What is the first argument presented 
in favor of the perpetuity of the 
Sabbath ? 


- Is the Sabbath a positive or a_moral 


duty? 


. What serious objection is offered to 


Paley’s ‘‘ Moral and Political Phi- 
losophy ”? 


. What appendages to the Jewish Sab- 


bath come under the head of posi- 
tive duties? 


. That a duty may be moral and not 


positive, must it necessarily be dis- 
coverable by reason? 

What is the second argument offered 
in favor of the perpetuity of the 
Sabbath? 

51 


9. 


10. 


Nile 


12. 


13. 


16. 


Where is the origin of the Sabbath 
recorded ? 

What saying of Christ proves the 
perpetuity of the Sabbath? 

What is the third proof given of the 
perpetuity of the Sabbath? 

How is the untenableness of Dr. 
Paley’s view of the subject shown? 

How is his plea, that the Sabbath is 
not mentioned during the patri- 
archal age, met? 


. What is the fourth proof of the per- 


petuily of the Sabbath? 


. How does Christ’s comment on the 


Decalogue prove the perpetuity of 
the Sabbath ? 

What farther proof on this subject 
is given by Christ and his apos- 
tles? 


. How is the proof summed up? 


| ae 


“7 


802 ®LEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. wi B 2 


CHAPTER VIII. 


THE SABBATH—ITS CHANGE FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRSS 
DAY OF THE WEEK. 


I. Ir may easily be shown that this change is reconcilable with the 
law of the Sabbath. Admitting that the institution is of perpetual and 
niversal obligation, it necessarily follows that it cannot be changed in 
what is essential to its nature, except by the same divine authority by 
which it was originally constituted. Mere adventitious appendages o1 
circumstances, not divinely prescribed or pertaining to the essence of 
the institution, may be modified or altered as experience may dictate, 
but all that is essential to its character must be preserved intact, or the 
institution is perverted. The Sabbath in its real essence, as we have 
already shown, is a moral as contradistinguished from a positive insti- 
tute. But the question to be settled is this: What elements are com- 


prised as essential to the Sabbath? This can only be determined by 


appealing to the great moral code, as formally enacted and inscrihed 
on the tables of stone. 

We cannot be made to believe, even by the revered authority of 
Richard Watson, that the Sabbath is founded upon a law “ partly 
moral and partly positive ;” nor can we perceive the import of the lan- 
cuage used in the presentation of that theory, that “the institution con- 
sists of two parts—the Sabbath, or holy rest, and the day on which it is 
observed.” The Sabbath is the institution in question. Then to say 
that the Sabbath is only a part of the institution, is to say that it is 
only a part of itself, which is absurd. Again, to say that a holy rest is 
one part of the institution, and a day or time on which it is observed 
is another part, is to speak unintelligibly ; for how can we conceive of 
a holy rest, or Sabbath, without a day or time on which it took place! 
But if the meaning be that a Sabbath, or a holy day of rest, is one thing, 
and the particular day on which the rest takes place is another thing—if 
this be the meaning, why not so express it? If we admit the theory, 
that the particular day on which the Sabbath is observed is an essential] 
part of the institution, then we must abandon the idea that the institu- 


Ch. viii.} THE SABBATIH—CHANGE TO THE FIRST DAY. 803 


tion is embraced in the moral law; for the specific day to be observed is 

not there prescribed—all that is expressed is, that after six days’ labor, 

the next day, which, according to that mode of reckoning, will be the 
seventh, is to be observed as the Sabbath. It is there said that “the 
Lord blessed (not a particular seventh day, but) the Sabbath-day, and 
hallowed it;” hence it is clear that the particular seventh day is not es- 
sential to the institution of the Sabbath. It is not prescribed in the 
statute engraven upon stone by which this duty is enjoined ; therefore, 
to say that the Sabbath is an institution partly positive and partly morad, 
not only involves us in absurdity, as shown above, but excludes it from 
being embraced in the Decalogue, and paves the way for its abroga- 
tion. 

The particular seventh day in question is a mere adventitious append- 

_age, not constituting an essential element of the Sabbatic. institution. 
This appendage is no constituent part of the Sabbath, but only a posi- 
tive enactment, which may or may not have a temporary and local exist- 
ence, and may or may not pass away without affecting the perpetuity 

- or the universality of the institution as such. 

Thus we see how it was that all the merely Jewish ordinances and 
enactments concerning their sabbaths, embracing much minutia and 
some burdensome and rigorous requirements, could pass away with the 
rest of their typical and ceremonial system, leaving the Sabbath itself, 
with every element essential to its nature, as embodied in the moral law, 
permanent and undisturbed. Thus we arrive at the conclusion, that the 
particular seventh day to be observed, not being an essential element of 
the institution, may be changed without affecting the integrity of the 
Sabbath, and in perfect conformity to the position that it is grounded 
aot on positive, but moral law. 

Again, to say that the particular seventh day in question is an essen- 
tial element of the Sabbath, embodied in the moral law upon which it 
is founded, and consequently not properly susceptible of change with- 
out formal, divine precept to that effect, is unreasonable in view of the 
nature of the subject. 

Some nations and communities commence their computation of days 
at one hour, and some at another; some begin at six in the evening, 
some at midnight. Now, if the precise day were essential, so would be 
the precise hour at which to begin the reckoning; vtherwise, the Sab- 
bath of one people would be half over before that of another people 
would commence, 

Again, suppose the precise seventh day and the exact hour had both 
peen prescribed in the moral law, even then confusion and inoonsist 


804 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 2 


ency would have been the inevitable result. All nations do not dwell 
in the same latitude and longitude; and from this fact alone, it would 
necessarily follow that different nations, according as their latitude and 
longitude varied, would commence their Sabbath at. different times; and 
the entire day, held sacred by some, would be desecrated by others. 
Thus, according to this view, the only way to prevent the Sabbath 
from being profaned would have been for each nation to be furnished 
with a separate and distinct revelation on the law of the Sabbath, ar- 
ranged, like an almanac, according to the diversity of localities. Such 
a one the Jews had, but it was connected not with the mora/, but the 
ceremonial law, which, being intended for them alone, passed away with 
their “law of commandments contained in ordinances.” But the Sab- 
bath, as embraced in the moral law, being intended for man—for all 
men, in all ages and in all latitudes and longitudes—is encumbered and 
fettered by no such localizing elements. Neither the specific seventh 
day nor the precise hour is prescribed, because neither the one nor the 
other was essential ; hence, agreeably to both Scripture and reason, the 
Sabbath may be changed from the seventh to the first day of the week 
in perfect consistency with the great moral law on which it is founded. 

II. THis CHANGE WAS MADE BY APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, DIVINELY 
CONFERRED. 

1. To establish this position, we observe, first, that the apostles were 
divinely commissioned by our Lord to organize and regulate the Christian 
Church. This appears from the terms of their grand commission. 
“Go ye therefore,” said Jesus, “and teach all nations, . . . teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, 
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matt. xxviii. 
19, 20. Here the apostles are sent forth with a divine commission to 
teach the nations “all things whatsoever the Saviour had commanded 
them.” This certainly embraced every thing necessary to the organ- 
ization and regulation of the Church, and consequently included the 
institution of the Sabbath. But as a guarantee that they would be 
divinely guided and assisted in this work, our Lord promises his ae- 
companying presence “alway, even unto the end of the world.” 

But to show their plenary authority yet more fully, Christ says to 
his apostles: “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” Jchn 
xx. 21. Now as the Father had sent the Son, endued with “all pover in 
heaven and in earth,” even so does the Son send forth his apostles in the 
discharge of their apostolic functions, clothed with all the authority he 
had received from the Father—that is, the apostles, in the discharge 
of their high office, as Christ’s inspired agents, expounded the doe: 


— eA 


Uh viii.) © THE SABBATII—CHANGE TO THE FIRST DAY. 80E 


trines of salvation, and “set in order” the affairs of the Church with 
the same divine authority as though Christ had performed this work in 
person. 

2. The divine authority of the apostles appears from the promises 
given them by the Saviour. 

Christ-said-to his. apostles: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy 
Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all 
things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have 
said unto you.” John xiv. 26. Again, Jesus says to his apostles: 
“When he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all 
truth.” John xvi. 13. 

More Scripture proof to the same effect might be presented, but the 
passages quoted amply show that the doings and teachings of the in- 
spired apostles in executing their mission, as the “ master-builders” in 
the erection and organization of the Christian Church, ought to be 
viewed as divinely authoritative. It only remains, therefore, to exam- 
ine the evidence establishing the fact that 

III. THe SaBBaTH WAS CHANGED UNDER THE APOSTOLIC AD- 
MINISTRATION FROM THE SEVENTH TO THE FIRST DAY OF THE 
WEEK. 

1. This appears, first, from the testimony of the New.Testament. 

If the fact can be made manifest that from the time of the resurreo 
lion of Christ the apostles and the Christian Churches generally cele- 
brated religious service regularly, not on the Jewish Sabbath, according 
to the long-established and universal custom of the Jews, but on the 
Arst day of the week, it will appear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that 
by apostolic example and direction that day, instead of the seventh, was 
set apart as the Christian Sabbath. 


On this best we thus read: ers first day of the week, 
tei ites cassia is win xi 7) clnil Cor, xvi. 2, we 


read: “Upon the first day of the-week; tet every one of-yoray by bine 
_in store, as God hath prospered him, that-there-be-ne-gatherings-witn 
I come.” The apostle had just said that he had “given order to the 
Churches in Galatia” similar to the instructions here furnished the 
Corinthians. Now, we ask, is it not a rational inference, from these 
scriptures, that it was the regular custom of these Churches, while 
under the eye and direct supervision of the inspired apostles, to assem- 
ble on the first day of the week for religious worship ? 

In reference to the disciples at Troas, referred to in the passage 
quoted from The Acts, it is not said, that “the disciples came together 


806 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. i. B. 2 


on the first day of the week” (as though it had incidentally occurred): 
but the language is, “Upon the first day of the week, when the disci- 
ples came together to break bread.” The form of the language ob- 
viously indicates that this assembling of the disciples on “the first day 
of the week to break bread” was an established custom in the Church; 
and it seems also to have been the custom of the Churches in Galatia 
and Corinth, for why should the apostle have specified that their col- 
lections for the poor should all be made on the first day of the week, 
unless as matter of convenience, that being the day of their regularly 
assembling for divine service? And if that was the day on which all 
these Churches met for weekly worship, especially for the “ breaking of 
bread,” or the Supper of the Lord, is it not evident that they observed 
the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath ? 

St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians (Gal. iv. 10), says: “ Ye ob- 
serve days, and months, and times, and years.” Macknight but ex- 
presses the opinion of commentators generally, when he says: “ By 
‘days, the apostle means the Jewish weekly Sabbaths.” Of course he 
here reproves the Galatians for their superstitious adherence to these 
days, according to Jewish custom. 

Again, the same apostle says: “Let no one judge you in meat, or in 
drink, or in respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or of sabbaths.” 
Col. ii. 16. Here the apostle refers also to the Jewish “command- 
ments contained in ordinances” which Christ had taken “out of the 
way, and nailed to his cross.” The testimony of the apostle must be 
understood in these passages as being pointed against the sabbaths of 
the Jews, so far as they were connected with the ceremonial and ritual 
precepts of the law; but, unless he intended to contradict himself, 
which is inadmissible, he had no reference to the Sabbath as set forth 
in the moral law, for we have already shown that he taught the per- 
petuity of that law; hence, according to St. Paul, while the Jewish 
Sabbath, so far as relates to circumstances outside of the Decal: sue, is 
superseded under the gospel, yet that institution, as embodied in the 
Decalogue, is not abrogated, but established. 

And as the Jewish restriction of the Sabbath to the seventh day of 
the week is not derived from the moral law, which is permanent and 
unalterable—but from outside, positive enactment, which is liable to 
change—it necessarily follows that, under the gospel, while the institue 
tion of the Sabbath cannot be annulled, yet it may be changed from the 
seventh to the first day of the week. And since St. Paul teaches that 
the Jewish sabbaths are not, while the moral law is, obligatory on 
Christians, it is clear that the Christian Church is under no obligation 


Uh. viii.] THE SABLATH—CHANGE TO THE FIRST DAY. 807 


to observe the seventh day of the week as a sabbath; but as the first 
day of the week was observed as the Christian Sabbath by the apostles 
and the first Christians under their sanction, it necessarily follows that, 
from the establishment of Christianity, the first and not the seventh day 
of the week has been the divinely authorized Sabbath. 

St. John (Rev. i. 10) says: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s-day,” 
etc. All commentators agree that the reference here is to the first day 
of the week, which was termed “the Lord’s-day” in honor of our 
Lord’s resurrection, which took place on that day; hence, from that 
period and ever afterward, beginning with the inspired apostles them- 
selves, the first day of the week has been termed “the Lord’s-day ” by 
the Christian Church, and observed, instead of the seventh, as the Chris- 
tian Sabbath, 

2. That the apostles and first Christians observed the first day of the 
week as a Sabbath, assembling regularly on that day for the public 
worship of God and for the sacrament of the Lord’s-supper, is not only 
evident from the New Testament, but this fact is confirmed by an unin- 
terrupted stream of Chureh-history; beginning in the apostolic age and 
extending to the present period. 

Upon this question, a few of the many available testimonies will be 
sufficient. 


Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 101, says: “Let every one that 


loves Christ keep holy the Lord’s-day— of days, the r eC. 
ion-day, the highest of all days.” 


Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote in the second century, says: 


‘ Both custom and reason challenge from us that we chould-hemor tr 
Lord’s-day, seeing_on_that-day it was_that our Lord Jesus_completed 


_his resurrection from the dead.” 

aa eee eniiiaputaeciec: Bishop of Lyons, who also lived in the second century, and 
who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a companion of St. John, 
speaks of the Lord’s-day as the Christian Sabbath. “ On_the Lord’s-_ 
day,” il of_us Christi: 4 

Clement of Alexandria, of the same century, testifies: “A Christian, 


according to the-command_of the gospel, observes the Lord’s-day, 
thereby glorifying the-resurrection of the Lord.” _ 

Tertullian, of the same period, says: “The Lord’s-dayisthe—hely__ 
_day of the Christian Church.” 


These testimonies abundantly establish the fact, not only that the 
es day of the week was styled “the Lord’s-day,” in honor of our Sav- 
iour’s resurrection, but that the Christian Church, even in the apostolie 
age, observed it as the Christian Sabbath. 


808 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. Bot 


IV. In the next place, we observe that this change of the Sabbath 
from the seventh to the first day of the week under the gospel economy 
is founded upon adequate reasons. 

1. It is admitted that the seventh was a day appropriate. for the 
Jewish Sabbath, because it celebrated and kept up in lively remem- 
brance the great work of creation. The poet has said: 


“’T was great to speak the world from nougih 
_ "'T was greater to redeem.— 


How appropriate is it, then, that the resurrection of Christ, the crown- 
ing evidence of his Messiahship, and the concluding scene in the great 
drama of the work of redemption for which he was manifested in the 
flesh, should be celebrated as the Christian Sabbath! Hence, from the 
morning on which he arose, as a memorial of that glorious event, the 
first day of the week has ever been hallowed by the Christian Church 
as “the Lord’s-day,” or the Sabbath. And thus, while the Christian 
Sabbath still commemorates the great work of creation according to the 
original appointment, by the change from the seventh to the first day 
of the week, it also commemorates the resurrection of our Lord. 

2. But this day is not only memorable as the day of Christ’s resur- 
rection, but for several of his remarkable appearayces afterward ; for 
on the same day on which he arose he appeared twice unto his disci- 
ples. On the next Lord’s-day, when they were all assembled, as though 


for religious worship, he again ard_i inmidst It was also 
on the Lord’s-day that the miraculous Pentecostal outpouring of the 


Holy Spirit took place; and through the successive ages of the 
Church God has manifestly sanctioned the public celebration of his 
worship on the Lord’s-day_by innumerable outpourings of his gracious 
Spirit, in the conversion of millions of souls in the congregations of his 
saints. Thus, from all the considerations we have presented, we are 
warranted in the conclusion that the Christian Church is divinely au- 
thorized and required to observe not the seventh, but the first, day of 
the week, or “the Lord’s-day,” as the Sabbath. 


Oh. viii.] fHE SABBATH—CHANGE TO THE FIRST DAY, 809 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VIII. 


Question 1. How can it be shown that) 6. What scriptures show their author- 


this change of the day of the Sab- ity? 
bath is reconcilable with the Sab-| 7. By what promises is the divine guid- 
batic law? ance pledged ? 
2. Is the specific day a part of the es-| 8 What proof of the change of the 
sence of the Sabbath? day does the New Testament fur- 
3. How is this position proved? nish ? 
4. What relation has the specific seventh| 9. What proof may be derived from 
day to the institution itself? Church-history? 


5 What is the first position taken in| 10. Upon what adequate reasons is the 
reference to the apostles’ authority? change founded? 


810 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iti. B. 2 


CHAPTER IX. 


THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH—ITS OBSERVANCE. 


Tuts may be learned, partly from the Decalogue itself, and partly 
from allusions to the subject in other parts of Scripture. The duty of 
keeping the Sabbath may be comprised in two parts—first, what we are 
to refrain from doing; secondly, what we are required to do, 

I. We consider what we should REFRAIN EROM RONG onthe Sabbath. 

On this day we should refrain from alllor labor and worldly 
business. The law reads: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy 
work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it 
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy 
man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that 
is within thy gates.” 

From this we learn, first, that the obligation of observing the Sab- 
bath, with those who. are householders or heads of families, extends.to 
all under their.control——to. children, to. strangers, or guests sojourt- 

in with them, and to domestic animals employed for purposes of 
abor. The law of the Sabbath forbids all ordinary work on the 
Lord’s-day, holding the head of the house responsible for all under his 
control. The spirit of the law will not, however, forbid such acts of 
labor as may be necessarily connected with the duty of attendance upon 
the services of religion. Traveling to and from church, and the employ- 
ment of animals for that purpose, are not here forbidden; but all such 
employments merely for business or visits of pleasure are plain viola- 
tions of the Sabbatic institution. 

The comment of our Saviour, however, while it sanctions the due 
ooservance of the Sabbath, according to the true spirit and design of 
the institution, condemns the extreme rigor with which the hypocritical 
Pharisees pretended to adhere to the letter of the Jewish law on the 
subject, while in reality they cared not for its spirit. He teaches clearly 
that works of necessity or mercy may properly be done on the Sabbath. 
Thus, the _necessary-preparation..of food, both for man and beast, may 
lawfully be made on the Sabbath-day; but even this preparation, so 
far as it may conveniently be made on the day befor |, cannot be thes 


alee 


Ch. ix.] THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH—ITS OBSERVANCE. 811 


neglected and attended to on the Sabbath without a violation of the 
law. The visitation of the sick, or of the poor and needy, in order to 
do good to their souls or bodies, is a work appropriate for the Sab- 
bath, and beautifully harmonizes with our Saviour’s teaching, when he 
demands: “Is it lawful on the Sabbath-days to do good, or to do evil? 
to save life, or to destroy it?” Luke vi. 9. 

II. But we inquire, What are the PostriyE buries which the law 
of this institution requires us to perform on the Sabbath- day? 

“ Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy,” is the divine injune- 
tion; but what is implied in keeping it holy? 

1. It cannot 1 idle Man was made for 
activity and usefulness. An idle drone can neither be happy himself 
nor useful to others. Although the Sabbath is a day of rest, in a cer- 
tain sense—that is, of cessation from worldly pursuits—yet it is by no 
means a day of inaction, or idleness. This day can only be properly 
“hallowed” by being devoted strictly and fully to the worship of God 
and attendance upon religious duties. He who spends the Sabbath in 
idleness at home, or in reading or social conversation, when he has it 
in his power to attend upon the public worship of God, as really vio- 
lates the Sabbath as the man who trades in his store or works in his 
shop or field. 

One design of the Sabbath is, to furnish for both man and beast a 
needed repose from bodily toil; another design is, to set apart one day 
of seven for special devotion to public worship and other religious 
duties. Now it is just as essential to the proper observance of the 
Sabbath to attend to one division of these duties as the other; hence we 
are no more at liberty to neglect public worship, and pretend that we 
are keeping holy the Sabbath, because we merely abstain from “doing 
ordinary work therein,” and from “buying or selling,” than we are to 
pursue our ordinary worldly business on that day, and suppose that, 
because we spend a portion of it in attendance upon public worship, we 
are properly keeping the Sabbath. When prevented from attending 
public worship by affliction, or other providential causes, the Sabbath 
may be properly observed by “searching the Scriptures,” reading good 
books, or performing other works of piety; but when not thus pre- 
vented, we cannot neglect the public services of the sanctuary without 
violating the spirit of the Sabbatic law. 

2. The practice of thus hallowing the Sabbath, by devoting a portion 
of_it.to.the public service of God, not only grows out of the design of 
the institution itself, but is sanctioned by the example of our Saviour, 
who regularly attended the services of the temple or the synagogue 


812 RLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. P. iiie B.2 
[ 


on the Sabbath-day. It is also in accordance with the example 
of the apostles and first Christians, who statedly met for public wor- 
ship on “the Lord’s-day;” nor can it be neglected without violating 
the apostolic injunction: “ Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves 
together.” 

The attendance upon family and private devotion not being pecu- 
liarly duties of the Sabbath, but alike obligatory upon all days, will not 
be particularly considered here, but we will conclude this chapter by 
some general reflections on the beneficial tendency of the institution. 

a The BENEFITS derived.fromthe Sabbath. 

fp he proper observance of the Sabbath is a_great blessing, even 

Here we Seabee the truth of our Sa iour’s 

ne Sabbath was made for man.” He who created man knew 
his nature, and gave him this institution to meet one of his constitu- 
tional necessities. Such is the nature of both our mental and bodily 
powers, that they cannot, without injury, be overtaxed with labor; and 
such is the natural cupidity, avarice, and ambition of fallen humanity, 
that most persons, but for the restrictions of the Sabbath, would devote 
themselves so incessantly to mental or bodily toil as greatly to enervate 
and impair their powers, if not entirely to destroy them, and bring on 
premature superannuation or untimely death. And if men would thus 
be led to overtax their own powers, how much more certainly would 
they overwork their servants and their animals! Hence, if there were 
uo command making the observance of the Sabbath a duty, such an 
institution would be a wise and judicious arrangement, merely as a 
measure of State policy or worldly prudence. 

2. But the benejits of this institution, im a social, moral, and rengious 
point of view, are incaleulably gre Bones 

The Sabbath, with its religious services, by bringing the people of 
any community together at regular and frequent intervals, naturally 
tends to cultivate among them a better acquaintance with each other, 
and thus to create a mutual sympathy and community of interest; 
while, at the same time, that spirit of selfishness so naturally resulting 
from an isolated state would be counteracted, and a feeling of unity 
and brotherhood, of friendly assimilation and social attachment, would 
necessarily ensue. 

Again, when we reflect on the pure and sublime themes so constantly 
kept before the religious assemblies on the Lord’s-day, and the ruinous 
tendency of those habits of idleness and dissipation which would natu. 
rally result from the neglect of this institution, how numerous and gretu 
must those benefits appear which, even in a social and moral view of 


words: 


he 


— eee te? © 


RT ee ERE RFE ON I “hot oe 


Ch. ix.) THE CHRISTIAN SABBATII—ITS OBSERVANCE. 813 


the subject, flow from the Sabbatie institution—with its oft-recurring 
solemn and orderly assemblies, its songs and its prayers, its lectures and 
its sermons! 

But look especially at the directly religious tendency of the Sabbath. 
Since men are so prone to forget God and neglect religion, under cir- 
cumstances the most favorable, how greatly would this irreligious pro- 
clivity be enhanced by a withdrawal of the influences of the Sabbath! 
There is a sacred stillness which marks this consecrated day—a solem- 
nity connected with the “sound of the church-going bell” and its peace 
fully-assembling multitudes—-that all must feel and acknowledge. 
Under these influences thousands of the thoughtless and the gay are 
led to the house of God, and thus brought within reach of the blessed 
word; and in this way each returning Sabbath numbers its multitudes 
reclaimed from vice, and washed and sanctified by redeeming grace, to 
swell the numbers of the saints on earth, and prepare them for the 
mansions on high. Blot from existence the holy Sabbath, with all its 
sacred associations and influences, and how appalling the consequences 
that would ensue! 

Finally, the Sabbath is beneficial as a type of the heavenly rest. Such it 
was, doubtless, in its original appointment, such it was to the saints in 
ancient times, such it has ever been to the Christian Church, and such 
it will continue to be while time endures. How strengthening to the 
faith, and how encouraging to the hope, of the believer must be this 
oft-recurring rest! © Buffeted by adverse winds and waves, faint-hearted 
and cast down, persecuted and afflicted, with what joy must the wearv 
pilgrim hail this day of sacred rest and worship, which so forcibly 


reminds him of that “rest that remaineth., to the people of Golde! parry 4 hd 9 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IX 


_ 
Question 1, From what parts of Scrip-| 6. Does this duty imply attendance 
ture may this duty be learned ? upon divine worship? 
2 What should we refrain from doing| 7. By whose exainple is this duty sane- 
~~ on the Sabbath? tioned ? 
3 What isa—peculiar-duty of-house-| 8. What temporal blessings result from 
~ holders? the observance of the Sabbath? 
4. What does the Saviour condemn in| 9. What are the social blessings con. 
reference to the Jewish method of nected with this institution? 
{ observing the Sabbath? 10. What benefits of a moral and relig 
6. What is the first thing named _as im- ious character result from it? 
‘plied in keeping the Sabbath? 11. What are its typical nees? 


= i 
j 
i z4 
ie 
i 
H 
, = 
j 
. 
. i 
te 


4 
) 
a4 
i 
4 i 
é 
’ 
‘ 
7 
; 
1 oF 
i 
¢ 
. ‘ 
- 
t 
. _ ri 
- - 
4 ‘ 
he 
ee 
¥ rir 
- 1 , 
us 
ee 
n 
‘ 
i ' 
‘ 4 i 
% 
1 
f « 
‘ 
y 
9 . a 
iv 7 
Mra} 
ve P ei 


ha a at 
vi cay vi SVS Milan Si Saal 6 iv able Bie! 
L oye i, ee ee ep et - ore eg rent Ene Aust is 


sine quel etek) Byres ie ee ta Sit a 
A a] At J ée 7 ac it aA. 
+ be TTS Mm Ma ER ee F ones si 
‘ _ + a = rg - . — 4 
p hat Bre ich ' Miro son) bata eae n 
_ } < at <a + 
‘ « a = i 
poy (Sag : srl PLT 90 Oras outta Wiel ne 
is ® ‘ é 
ine te 4 ‘- tSAlA ican = TONY, be a2 ay 
s = 
* ic ~—> a a: 
a * a La bit A Loews: a) ile 48 ai As wh Loe D 
7 ns, : } + Se a © «+@, ‘” be a 
ie kh, Leese iy * tiny Art A ine eee Sar a 
un ‘ - a] : 
oe te wows Vr iat ptt eld aigina hy mere 
y rie ry . ees > 
Ch) SMa Pae gee a IRE 21h ey (eae an "SenE Re 
4sdap ie nend Esha Ae ee ae 
/ r * 


at ed BS ii = ee iidtee 


‘ 4 a. ‘ade 
oe Asal ¢ A OY VDP yeeoy a 


Po poe i) eT te hioh, 


; i ee t AS ae . oe, 
1 ~ rf ie 5) i $i. Ayre ner = #: ' " 
< ‘ iat +" ved Wess 5 Ee: 


hte kh? il 


. hit ve Ane ae . ees hee 
: ote aah ghia Weir ee Rie i he st aies) 
(ie aot letoat'e d mre ee, Pas Sor ‘4, a i epee 

evamer dt oll eta hie eum Fears sei aes 


iy ‘a we pace fig ygesdifsir an a ; e . ee. ) oe ’ "ait 


Pi ai at 8 Tide 4 *) é : ay Ao a® ; ‘ite Oe A 
b be 
vats beds ppedreciae ban ie ea titres 
‘ 


** 


f ‘ } 
f Ta 
~ ‘ - 
i oe 
: - ae je ti 
j 
t " 1 ry Pd 4 
i ¢ 
. - 
A - ; Vecteabies 
‘ } 7 4 
é Ai Be 6 ri pA 
j y a 
‘ . “ 
"ie L Pied 
ult ’ = ae * # 


ran) 


i ae A ace Pw ees ee oe 
“i a w " ’ wn? “ie ij o., F hi eval ail oatA 


Ley ahi hpwhet es i L \n my Si ’ ier Cte “ope ah th ed ns 
* ) j rf nh ; a* aw } oll 


Vb Py a4 Vr \« uw i dvs eyo 
, SS hte, jeu any yt a) Sy ethic 


_— 


Sa Ga Yee PS i il 
t 


an Caen t ip. cls pla Ay ar age: a 
‘ _ ae eMAGa ie 
on Why ¥ 


Jit SUT ad > Ss, oul om mt! 
: “ * 


q ie as 
‘ett tied “at ee 4 ms 


aid 


PART II].—THE MORALS OF CHRISTIANITY. 


BOOK III.—OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 


CHAPTER X. 
OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR—ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONSIDEREL 


AGREEFABLY to our Lord’s comment on the moral law, our duty to 
God, which we have already considered, was embraced in the first of 
the two tables of stone, and our duty to our neighbor in the second. 
The former is all fulfilled in loving God supremely; the latter in loving 
our neighbor as ourselves. 

To the latter branch of this duty, or to the second table of the Deca- 
logue, we now call attention. In our Saviour’s epitomized presentation 
of the moral law, the six commandments of the second table are all 
comprised in this sentence, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ;” 
and also in our Saviour’s golden rule (Matt. vii. 12). 

St. Paul comments on the moral law in perfect accordance with ou 
Saviour’s teachings. He says: “He that loveth another hath fulfilled 
the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not 
kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt 
not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly com- 
prehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfill: 
ing of the law.” Rom. xiii. 8-10. 

Thus it appears that all moral obligation—our duty to God, ourselves, 
and others—is comprised in one word—Love. Here is the grand ce.- 
ter and source whence all duty is derived—love to God and love to 
man. How sublimely simple and comprehensive is this comment of 


Christ; and how beautiful the illustration of St. Paul! In considering 
(815) 


816 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. $ 


this moral code, so far as it relates to our love to our neighbor, two things 
are to be noticed— 
I. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES EMBRACED. 

II. THEIR APPLICATION TO SPECIAL CASES AND CONDITIONS. 

In this chapter we will consider the general principles embraced. 

These are all comprised in the six commandments of the second 
table; and no more simple and correct method of analyzing and illus 
trating the subject can be adopted than to consider each of these com- 
mandments separately. 

I. The fifth commandment—the first in the second table—reads thus: 
“ Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon 
the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Ex. xx. 12. 

Although this commandment only specifies the duty of children to 
parents, yet, according to its scope and bearing, it should be under- 
stood as covering the whole ground, not only of the obligation of chil- 
dren to parents, and of parents to children, but of inferiors to superiors, 
and of superiors to inferiors. As the general duty here enjoined will 
be particularly considered under our next general division, to avoid 
repetition, we omit its discussion here. 

II. The sixth commandment is, “Thou shalt not kill.” 

1. This commandment forbids the taking of life—either our own, or 
that.of our fellow-creatures—except in case of public justice by process 
of law, necessary self-defense, or justifiable war lawfully waged. 

In reference to the first exception here specified, there can be little 
ecntroversy. All will admit that, for a capital offense, the law of the 
land may rightfully take the life of the criminal. This is only carry- 
ing out the ancient precept delivered to Noah and his family: “ Whoso 
sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Gen. ix. 6. 

It must also be understood that treason, because it is of the essence of 
n urder, and necessarily leads to its commission, is here constructively 
embraced as a crime included with murder, and may rightfully be in- 
volved in the same penalty of forfeiture of life. 

But as to crimes and misdemeanors of less magnitude, and for the 
perpetration of which there is no warrant in the word of God for in- 
flicting the penalty of death, should any State attach such penalty, and 
the officers of the law carry out the sentence and execution accordingly, 
the State itself then becomes the violator of the sixth commandment, 
oy taking the life of man without authority from God who gave it. 

In a case of this kind, the State itself is the offender in the sight of 
Heaven, and, as may be apprehended, will, sooner or later, be visited 
vith judicial punishment. There can. be no question that it is the 


ef SY 


Ch. x.j OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 817 


duty of all civil officers, whether judicial or executive, while holding 
office under government, to carry out the constitution and laws of that 
government faithfully, according to their official oath; and, so long as 


_they are not convinced of any discrepancy between the civil and the 


divine law, they are blameless in so doing. But should they be required, 
as civil officers, to sanction or perform what they are convinced is con- 
trary to the law of God, then they can no longer act as officers of the 
law without being identified with the State a8 particeps criminis. Their 
only proper remedy then is, “for conscience’ sake,” to resign. 

2. That. self-defense, when our own lives are attacked or in imminent 
danger, is a duty, there can be no question. The law of nature dictates 
it. Nor is it inconsistent with the duty of “loving our neighbor as our- 
selves.” Yet even the plea of self-defense cannot justify us in taking 
the life of another person unless that self-defense be strictly necessary, 
and not brought about by our own willful act. If we have voluntarily 
brought the difficulty or danger upon ourselves, or if we can see a way 
of escape from it by any other means, we cannot, without guilt, save our- 
selves by destroying others. 

3. It is generally conceded that the taking of life in qwar is nut mur- 
der. St. Paul says: “ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. 
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of 
God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance 
of God” Rom, xiii. 1, 2. 

Human governments, then, are the ordinance of God—not, however 
in such sense that God sanctions all their principles or measures. They 
are frequently cruel, unjust, and vicious. As such, God may tolerate, 
but he cannot sanction or approve them. Yet that human govern- 
ments should exist, notwithstanding their imperfections, is according to 
the divine will, and that, as a general rule, they should be treated with 
respect and submission, is also a maxim of revelation; but as, in the 
nature of things, human governments in the present state of the world 
cannot be maintained without war, it necessarily follows that war is 
sometimes justifiable; and if so, then the taking of life in war, accord- 
ing to the rules of honorable warfare, is not a violation of this com- 
mandment. 

But if the war, though justifiable in itself, be conducted on principles 
of cruelty, and human life be wantonly and uselessly destroyed, con- 
trary to the rules of honorable warfare, so far as this is the case, the 
taking of life in war is as really murder as in any other instance. 

Again, if the war itself be unjustifiable — if it be commenced and 
carried on through wicked motives, merely through worldly pride and 

52 


818 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. in. B. 3 


alabition—through the lust of power or gain, or to gratify a spirit of 
revenge—in all such cases, the war, from beginning to end, is but a 
wholesale murder—it is a plain violation of the precept, “Thou shalt 
not kill.” 

In an unjustifiable war, the nation bringing it on is guilty of a 
national offense against God and man, for which, as a nation, they will 
be likely to be visited with condign punishment. The individuals com- 
posing the nation waging’ such a war, so far as they may voluntarily 
engage in it, with a proper understanding of its character, are personal 
violators of the sixth commandment, and are really guilty of murder; 
but so far as their participation is not voluntary, but unavoidable, they 
are individually innocent or excusable. 

4 Once more: This command, “Thou shalt not kill,” also expressly 
prohibits— 

Dueling.—There is no mode of reasoning by which this sin can be 
made to appear in any better light than that of willful murder. It sets 
aside, on the ground of mere custom, fashion, pride, or prejudice, the 
express statute of Heaven. It treats with contempt the “image of 
God”—in which man was created. It combines, in a single act, both 
suicide and the murder of our fellow-being. 

Dueling may properly be classed with the barbarisms of the dark 
ages. The law of honor, falsely so called, from which it claims its 
sanction, has nothing in reason or revelation to sustain it. It is alike 
repugnant to the teachings of both—it can have no tendency to decide 
the matter of quarrel between the combatants. Nor can it be a test 
of true bravery; for he who has the firmness and heroism to decline a 
contest in the face of the scoff and ridicule of the ungodly multitude, 
rather than do a wrong act, gives evidence of more real courage than 
he: could give by hazarding his life and that of his antagonist in 
a duel. 

If a man falls in a duel, he has murdered himself without law or 
reison, but in opposition to the dictates of both; and, in many cases, 
rashly and sinfully abandoned his pest of responsibility as the guardian, 
protector, and support, of a helpless family. If he kills his antagonist, 
he has murdered his fellow-man, and perhaps thus thrown his helpless 
widow and orphans adrift upon the world in a state of dependence and 
want. If neither falls, both are guilty, in intent, of both suicide and 
murder, in the common sense of the term. And in either case, and 
whatever may be the issue, the duelist has planted in his conscience a 
thern tnat will pierce his soul with anguish while life endures, if not 
forever and ever, And for what good end are all these evils evoked? 


Ch. x } VUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 819 


Who is benefited? What law of God or of reason has been honored ? 
It is but a sacrifice of the dearest interests of humanity upon the altar 
of folly and madness. 

5. Suicide—Some of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers at 
times expressed very correct notions in reference to this crime. Plato 
says: “We men are all by the appointment of God in a certain prison, 
or custody, which we ought not to break out of, or run away.” Cicero 
says. “God, the supreme governor of all things, forbids us to depart 
hence without his order. All pious men ought to have patience to con- 
tinue in the body as long as God shall please who sent us hither; and 
not force themselves out of the world before he calls for them, lest they 
be found deserters of the station appointed them by God.” But Cicero, 
in another place, appears as the apologist of this crime, and Seneca was 
also its advocate; while Demosthenes, Cato, Brutus, and Cassius, all 
encouraged it by theirexample. Hence it is manifest that the Bible 
alone can establish us firmly on the right foundation in reference to this 
question. . 

That the divine law, as exhibited in the sixth commandment, clearly 
prohibits suicide, may be seen both from the letter and spirit of that 
precept, “Thou shalt not kill.” Surely, to take my own life is as literal 
a transgression of this law as to take the life of my neighbor! Our 
Saviour’s version of the law, “Thou shalt do no murder,” is still more 
emphatic in the prohibition of suicide and every conceivable species of 
murder, 

The fact that the Mosaic law specifies no penalty against the crime 
of suicide, is no proof that i was not included with every other species 
of murder. This crime, from its very nature, places him who commits 
it at once beyond the reach of all human law. Of course, to annex a 
penalty, under such circumstances, would involve an absurdity—an 
utter impossibility. He who takes his own life, can only be punished 
for that offense by Him who is the author of life, and to whom all are 
accountable for this guilt. 

The precept of our Saviour, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self,” plainly prohibits suicide. If, as all admit, this language forbids 
the taking of the life of our neighbor, because we would thereby exhibit 
less love to our neighbor than we have for ourselves, it is necessarily 
implied that self-murder is forbidden, because, by performing this act, 
we would show less love to ourselves: than we are required to exercise 
toward our neighbor. Hence, as the précept implies a similarity or cor: 
respondence between our love for ourselves and our neighbor, if it forbids 
the taking of the life of our neighbor, it must also prohibit suicide 


820 ELEMENTS OF DIVINiTY. [P. iii. B. 8 


Again as the taking of human life, as a penalty aunexed to crime, 
can only be justified on the principle of necessity, in view of maintain- 
ing just government over mankind in a state of political association, it 
follows—as self-murder cannot be placed on the ground of a similar 
necessity, in view of the maintenance of society, and personal security 
and happiness therein—that therefore it can only be contemplated as a 
crime, alike repugnant to the letter and spirit of both natural and 
divine law, though in its nature not susceptible of punishment by human 
penalty. 

Again, the reason assigned in Scripture rendering the crime of taking 
human life so heinous and offensive, applies as forcibly to suicide as to any 
other description of murder—‘“ Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man 
shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” Now, 
is it not clear that, as the turpitude of the crime of “shedding man’s 

tood” results from the fact that he was “made in the image of God,” 
and as this applies alike to every indivic.aal of the race—from these 
reasons is it not clear that suicide is as emphatically condemned as the 
“shedding of man’s blood” under any circumstances whatever ? 

6. According to the admitted maxim, that “the greater comprehends 
the less,” the command, “ Thou shalt not kill,’ not only prohibits mur- 
der, but all offenses of less magnitude whose natural tendency leads to 
the perpetration of murder. 

Under this head may be embraced—sinful anger, hai ‘ed or malice, 
revenge, strife, excess—in relation to food, drink, or labor- -wnnecessary 
exposure of our own life or that of others, and the neglect of the necessary 
means of preserving life, under any circumstances. 

(1) Sinful Anger—As the indulgence in this often results in murder, 
it is forbidden by this commandment. Although it cannot be supposed 
that the pure and holy nature of God is susceptible of anger, as a per- 
turbing or agitating passion, in the sense in which this emotion often 
exists in man, yet, as in his nature he is immovably opposed to sin, this 
fixed opposition—this holy disapprobation and hatred of sin, and deter- 
mination to punish the sinner—are expressed in Scripture by the term 
“anger ;” hence we read, “God is angry with the wicked every day.” 
From this fact we may rationally infer that anger is not, under all cir- 
cumstances, sinful; but that, in the sense in which it is commonly 
indulged, it is sinful, and in direct antagonism to the great law of love 
in which the essence of Christianity is embraced, is clearly set forth 
in the Bible. St. Paul says: “ Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, 
and clamor, be put away from you, with all malice.” Eph. iv. 31. In 
the same apostle’s enumeration ¢f “the works of the flesh,” he embraces 


— 


Ch. x.] VUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOL. 821 


not only “murders,” but also strife, variance, hatred, and wrath. And 
St. John testifies: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” 1 
John iii. 15. Anger, if permitted to carry us beyond a calm and holy 
indignation against sin, or if allowed a permanent lodgment in the 
heart, becomes sinful and pernicious, destroying the peace of him who 
indulges in it, and divesting him of that amiability of temper and 
behavior which is essential to the Christian character. 

(2) Revenge is also interdicted by this law. St. Paul says: “ Recom- 
pense to no man evil for evil. . . . Dearly beloved, avenge not your- 
selves, but rather give place unto wrath ; for it is written, Vengeance is 
mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, 
feed him; if he thirst, give him drink ; for in so doing thou shalt heap 
coals of fire on his head. Be not evercome of evil, but overcome evil 
with good.” Romans xii. 17, 19-21. How attractive, how sublime, are 
the mild precepts of the gospel, when contrasted with the selfishness 
and cruelty of human philosophy! Lord, endue us with that mind 
“which was also in Christ Jesus” ! 

(3) Strife, contention, disputation, and quarreling, originating in an 
unholy temper, and conducted in a vainglorious or ambitious spirit, are 
forbidden by this law, and are inconsistent with Christian character, and 
hurtful to society. “Follow peace with all men” (Heb. xii. 14) is the 
gospel rule. And again: “Do all things without murmurings and dis- 
putings.” Phil. ii. 14. Again: “Let nothing be done through strife or 
vainglory.” Phil. ii. 3. St. Paul also (2 Cor. xii. 20) speaks in con- 
demnation of “envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swell- 
tings, tumults,” showing that all such things are uncongenial to the spirit 
of Christianity. 

(4) Ina word, this commandment prohibits all injurious excess tend- 
ing to the enervation or destruction of the health, vigor, and activity 
of our bodily powers or mental faculties. This not only interdicts all 
drunkenness and dissipation, in the common acceptation of the term, 
but also excess in the use of food, in labor, in recreation, or amusement, 
or whatever would tend to impair the constitution, or deprive us of 
the possession of mens sana in corpore sano—a sound mind in a healthy 
body. 

(5) Again, if we neglect the means which we believe to be essential 
to the preservation of our own lives, or the lives of others, and life is 
lost through that neglect, we are guilty of murder. If we see a blin4 
man, unconscious of his danger, about to step over a precipice where he 
will inevitably be destroyed, and have it in our power to save his life, 
either by giving him timely warning, or by pulling him from the dan- 


822 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 3 


ger, and fail to do so, we are as really guilty of murder as though we 
had directly taken his life by our own overt act. “Lord have merey 
upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!” 

III. “THou sHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.” 

The sin here forbidden, embracing every violation of the laws of con- 
jugal fidelity, and of chastity in general, will be considered in connee 
tion with the obligations pertaining to the conjugal relation. Hence we 
will not enter upon the subject in this connection. 

IV. “THoU SHALT NOT STEAL.” 

Under the head of theft, as the term is here used, much more is im- 
plied than the overt act of stealing in the sense of the civil law. Ina 
legal sense, to steal is to take from another his property, goods, money, 
or possessions, in a secret and fraudulent manner. It differs from rob- 
bery, in that the one is performed in a secret or hidden manner, and 
the other by violence or force. 

But as the divine law penetrates more deeply, and scrutinizes more 
closely, than civil statutes can do, having cognizance of the secret thought 
as well as the overt act, it is understood here not only to forbid the 
crime of theft, in its literal, civil acceptation, but also robbery, the re- 
ceiving of stolen property, knowing it to be such, all fraudulent dealing 
—using false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice or 
unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, any breach of trust, 
any act of oppression, extortion, bribery, unjust and vexatious litigation, 
trespassing upon property, engrossing commodities so as to enhance the 
price, gaming, or any other method of taking from others their property 
or possessions, without due and adequate compensation for the same. 
How full and comprehensive is the law of God as here exhibited; and 
with what simplicity and beauty is it expressed by our Saviour in his 
golden rule of “doing to others as we would that they should do unto 
nasal 

It may be a question of some doubt whether the crime of slander 
more properly falls under the condemnation of this or the neat com- 
mandment, which prohibits false testimony. It seems clearly condemned 
by both precepts. As it speaks falsely against our neighbor, it is “ bear- 
ing false witness,” and is condemned by the ninth commandment; but 
as it thereby steals away his good name, which is “rather to be chosen 
than great riches,” it properly comes under the head of theft. It is 
written: “ Whoso privily slandereth his neighbor, him will I cut off” 
Ps. ci. 5. In describing wicked apostates who were to come, St. Paul 
gives it as one of their characteristics, that they will be found “speak- 
ing lies in hypocrisy.” 1 Tim. iv. 2. And he says to the Ephesians 


Ch. x.] OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 828 


(iv. 31): “Let all evil speaking be put away from you.” In describing 
the atrocities of the unconverted pagans, he characterizes them as “back- 
biters.” Rom. i. 80. The crime of slander has been forcibly described 
in the familiar lines of the poet— 


“Good name in man or woman 
Is tue immediate jewel of their souls 
Who steals my purse steals trash ; 
But he that filches from me my good name 
Robs me of that which not enriches him, 


And makes me poor indeed.” 
*e 


“Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!” 

V. “THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FAISE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGH. 
BOR.” 

This, like all the other precepts of the divine law, grows out of the 
principle of Jove. Hence, as we should “love our neighbor as our- 
selves,” we should take the same care to refrain from speaking so as to 
injure him, either in his property or reputation, as we would take in refer: 
ence to ourselves. 

This duty forbids, not only testifying falsely against our neighbor 
when called on to render legal evidence, but also condemns falsehood 
and deception in every shape. It prohibits forgery, concealing the 
truth, undue silence in a just cause; all tale-bearing, whispering, de- 
tracting ; all rash, harsh, and unjust censuring—it condemns all con- 
cealing, excusing, or extenuating sins, and all raising or circulating 
false rumors, and even all countenancing evil reports concerning our 
neighbor, whether true or false, when the object is, not to do good 
to others, but injury to him. “Lord have mercy upon us, and incline 
our hearts to keep this law!” 

VI. “THou SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S HOUSE, THOU 
SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S WIFE, NOR HIS MAN-SERVANT, 
NOR HIS MAID-SERVANT, NOR HIS OX, NOR HIS ASS, NOR ANY THING 
THAT IS THY NEIGHBOR'S.” 

This commandment is directly opposed to that love of the world which 
is represented by St. John as inconsistent with the love of God. “If 
any man love the world,” saith the apostle, “the love of the Father is 
not in him.” 1 John ii.15. To covet, is earnestly to desire or long after an 
object, that we may possess and enjoy it. It may be taken in a good 
sense, as in the passage, “Covet earnestly the best gifts;” but when it 
has for its object the property of our neighbor, and amounts to a desire 
unlawfully to possess that which belongs to another, it is founded in 
practical injustice. and is one of the most widely-extended and perniciour 


$24 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. in, B. 3, 


sins. {t is at the root of nearly all dishonesty and fraud. Indeed, it com- 
prehends “the love of money,” which, the apostle teaches, “is the root of 
all evil.” 1 Tim. vi. 10. As an eminent author has said: “ This is a 
most excellent moral precept, the observance of which will prevent all 
public crimes; for he who feels the force of the law that prohibits the 
inordinate desire of any thing that is the property of another, can never 
make a breach in the peace of society by an act of wrong to any of even 
its feeblest members.” “Lord have mercy upon us, and write all these 
thy laws in our hearts, we beseech thee.” 


* 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER X, 
Question 1. In what is our duty to our | 7. Why does this law prohibit duel. 


neighbor embraced? ing! 

2. How is this proved by both Christ | 8. Does it prohibit suicide? and where- 
and St. Paul? fore? 

3. What two things are here to be con-| 9. What sins of less magnitude does 
sidered ? this law prohibit? 

4. What is embraced in the scope of the | 10. What is included under the kead of 
sixth commandment? theft? 

5 What does it forbid? 11. What under the head of bearing 

| 8 When is war justifiable, and when is false witness * 

an individual justifiable for engag-| 12. What under the head of covetous 
ing in it’ ness? 


ar arse tHe 


Ch xi] OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGIIBOR. S24 


CHAE Re eX le 


OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR—APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO SE 
CIAL CASES AND CONDITIONS—HUSBANDS AND WIVES. 


We now proceed to consider the principles of righteousness em- 
braced in the law of love to our neighbor in their application to some 
of the most important relations in life. 

I. The first of these RELATIONS to which we call attention is that 
subsisting between HUSBAND AND WIFE. 

1. Its propriety. ' 

(1) This relation dates its origin from the commencement of our 
race. Amid the peaceful bowers of paradise, when sin as yet had not 
disturbed the harmony or tarnished the beauty of the fair creation, when 
all was innocence, purity, and love, even then, “The Lord God said, 
It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help 
meet for him.” Gen. ii, 18. 

Here, we behold the origin of this endearing relation, around which 
cluster the most sacred obligations and hallowed enjoyments of life. 
It is founded on the will and appointment of God, and is as much 
adapted to the nature of man as the rays of light to the eye. As this 
beautiful organ of the human body would be useless and unmeaning 
but for the light that falls upon it, so there are important faculties of 
our complex nature which can only be developed and exercised in ~on- 
nection with the conjugal relation. 

When Eve was formed from the rib of Adam, it was said: “She 
shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.” It is 
added: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and 
shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.” Here, the 
fact that the material substance of which woman was formed was ex- 
tracted from man indicates an imperfection of his nature resulting 
from that extraction, which could only be remedied by a restoration of 
the abstracted substance; not, however, in the shape of a literal rib, 
as when taken from him, but as a “help meet for him,” a more highly- 
refined organism of human nature, which, after having received the 


826 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iti B. 3. 


polish of passing the second time through the creative hands, was to be 
restored to him as “bone of his bones, and flesh of his flesh.” So that, 
in return for a small portion of his material composition, he receives 
as part of his nature a “help meet for him”—a woman, a wife—super- 
abundantly restoring what he had lost, and enhancing the perfection 
of his nature and the extent of his enjoyment. 

(2) The propriety and. general obligation of this conjugal relation not 
only appear from the history of its origin, as just. referred to, but are 
evident from the native..instinets-of humanity. The natural attraction 
of love between the sexes, independent of any direct precept to that 
effect, as a general rule, will secure the adoption of the marriage state. 
And as it does not appear that this obligation was intended to be uni- 
versal, but only a duty of general bearing, admitting of exceptions, the 
instincts of nature alone are sufficient to secure its general observ- 
ance. 

(3) Again, the exceptions to the obligation to enter upon the mar 
riage state may arise from two different considerations : 

First. The bond of this obligation can only legitimately spring from 
the emotion of love, or the preference of the affections; hence it fol- 
lows that in tke absence of this state of affection between the parties, 
the entrance upon the marriage state, so far from being a duty, would 
rather be a profanation of the institution. 

Secondly. Poverty, affliction, or any insurmountable barrier in the 
way of attending to the duties connected with the married relation, 
may render the entrance upon it improper. In times of great persecu- 
tion or calamity, it may be injudicious for some persons to assume the 
increased responsibilities which this relation involves; or individuals, 
as was the case with St. Paul, may feel it their duty to engage in some 
special service for the Church, which could scarcely be properly per- 
formed by one encumbered by the duties and cares of the married re- 
lation. But, under all ordinary circumstances, it is clear, as well from 
reason as Scripture, that marriage is a duty, and those cases in which 
it is not are exceptions to the general rule; and such exceptions are 
only valid when it is clear that this important relation would necessa- 
rily conflict with other obligations more important in their nature, or 
imperiously binding in their character. 

2. The-advantages resulting from the marriage institution are so ob- 
vious and great that they need not be dwelt upon. Without the family 
relation necessarily connected with this institution, all the cherished 
endearments clustering around the home circle, uniting parents and 
children, and brothers and sisters, in fondest affection, would be lost 


Ch. x1.] OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR 827 


Destroy this sacred institution, and the foundation of parental care for 
children is removed, and all that tender attention and nurture so es- 
sential to the proper training of the young is also destroyed, and chil- 
dren are left to grow up, like “the wild ass’s colt,” in utter neglect and 
ignorance, unfitted for the enjoyment of happiness, or for any station 
of usefulness in society, 

3. The duties. pertaining to the conjugal state are important and ob- 
vious. 

(1) Mutual fidelity and affection are required. This grows out of the 
very nature of the institution. Indeed, if husband and wife are not 
under mutual obligations of fidelity and affection toward each other, 
in what does the import or propriety of marriage consist? The very 
nature of marriage implies a pledge to this effect, and every dereliction 
from the faithful performance of this vow is a profanation of the insti- 
tution. 

Not only the nature and design of the institution require mutual 
fidelity and love on the part of husband and wife, binding each to the 
other alone, and prohibiting the practice of polygamy, but such is also 
the plain teaching of the Bible. Hence we read, in the second chapter 
of Genesis, at the very birth of the institution: “Therefore shall a 
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and 
they shall be one flesh.” It does not read wives, but wife—in the singu- 
lar; hence, polygamy is here explicitly interdicted. 

And it is evident, from the teaching of Christ, that the occasionat 
toleration, or rather sufferance, of polygamy, in the patriarchal age, 
was no repeal of the laws of the institution as given in the commence- 
ment. 

Our Saviour says, when interrogated by his disciples on the subject 
of divorce: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the begin- 
ning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a 
man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they 
twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one 
flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asun- 
der. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a 
writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, 
Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away 
your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, 
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and 
shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her 
which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matt. xix. 4-9. 

The general tenor of Scripture in both Testaments is against polyg- 


828 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ni. B.S 


amy. The marriage relation is constantly referred to by the terms 
husband and wife, each in the singular. One passage, in confirmation 
of this position, we present from the Old Testament: “Yet ye say, 
Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and 
the wife of thy youth, against whom thou has dealt treacherously ; yet 
is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he 
make one (one woman)? Yet had he the residue of the Spirit. And 
wherefore one?” The answer is, “That he might seek a godly seed.” 
Here the practice of polygamy is shown to be in explicit contraven- 
tion of the original institution. And the reason on which the law is 
founded is referred to as relating to the character of the offspring, 
thus affirming the fact that polygamy tends to the deterioration of 
children. 

Again, nature herself is against polygamy. The generally admitted 
fact, that the number of male births in all countries is only to a small 
extent in excess of the number of female births (as if to balance against 
the greater exposure of the male sex to death by war and other casu- 
alties), is a forcible indication that nature has designed but one woman 
for one man, while both are living. 

Once more, the fact that marriage is properly founded on mutual 
love between the parties—which, in its true character, can only subsist in 
the heart of woman or man toward one person at the same time—ren- 
ders polygamy utterly irreconcilable with the nature of the requisite 
conjugal affection. 

Marriage being originally an appointment of God, and the duties 
pertaining to that relation being prescribed in Scripture, it is properly 
a divine institution. But since civil law may enact regulations con- 
cerning the performance of these duties, so far as these regulations 
are consistent with the divine law, and relate to external duties prop- 
erly cognizable by civil enactments, it may therefore be admitted that 
marriage is also, in one sense, and to a limited extent, a civil regu- 
lation. 

In connection with the mutual fidelity and affection required by the 
law of God between husband and wife may be considered the crime of 
adultery, which is so expressly prohibited by this law, whether as set 
forth in the Decalogue or other parts of the Scripture; and also all 
manner of inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, fornication, sinful 
lust, and every violation of that purity and chastity of heart and life 
which Christianity enjoins. All such deviations from the principles of 
holiness, whether in the overt act or only in the purpose or desire of 
the heart, are expressly condemned by the moral law of God. 


Se aE eee 


Ch. xi.) OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 825 


(2) But between husband and wife there are other obligations of 
kindred nature specified in Scripture. Thus it is the duty of the hus- 
band to be the guardian, protector, and comforter of his wife; and of the 
wife to reverence, honor, and obey her husband. 

These reciprocal duties are beautifully portrayed by St. Paul. He 
illustrates the endearing relation between husband and wife by the 
union between Christ and his Church. His language is: “ Wives, sub- 
mit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the 
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the 
Church ; and he is the Saviour of the body. Therefore as the Church 
is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in 
every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the 
Church, and gave himself for it. ... . So ought men to love their wives 
as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no 
man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, 
even as the Lord the Church. . . . For this cause shall a man leave 
his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife; and they two 
shall be one flesh. . . . Nevertheless, let every one of you in particu- 
lar so love his wife, even as himself; and the wife see that she rever- 
ence her husband.” Eph. v. 22-33. 

Here the husband is taught to love, nourish, and cherish his wife 
as his own flesh, “even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself 
for it.” How intimate the relation, and how great the affection it 
enjoins ! 

But the wife is taught to reverence and be submissive to her husband ; 
yea, “to be subject to her own husband in every thing, as the Church 
is subject unto Christ.” How deep must be the reverence, and how 
unbounded the confidence, where such implicit submission is required ! 
But where the union is founded upon that mutual love which should 
hallow the conjugal bond, there is no disquieting restraint, nothing 
displeasing or servile in connection with these duties, but all becomes 
a sweet and living pleasure—a perennial source of enjoyment and 
bliss. 


830 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


(P. iii, B. 3 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XI. 


Question 1. Under what circumstances 
did the conjugal relation origi- 
nate? 

2. By what do the propriety and obli- 
gation of this relation appear? 

3. Is the obligation to enter upon this 
relation universal ? 


V4. By what circumstances may thigob- 
ligation be annulled? 
5. What are sorae of the benefits of’this 


relation? 
§ What are the prominent duties con 
nected with it? 


(é 


8. 


9. 


What is the Bible testimony respect: 
ing polygamy? 
What is the voice of nature on the 
subject ? Wm 
In what respect is marriage a divine, 
and in what sense a civil, institu- 
tion? 


A 


_ What is embraced in the law against 


adultery ? 


. How is the marriage relation illus- 


trated by St. Paul? 


. What are the reciprocal duties of 


husbands and wives? 


Ch. xii.| OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 


CHAPTER XII. 


OUR DUTY TO CUR NEIGHBOR—APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO 8PEK 
CIAL CASES AND CONDITIONS—PARENTS AND CHILDREN, 


WE next consider the relation subsisting between parents and chil- 
dren. This is another domestic relation, intimately connected with the 
one already examined, pertaining to husband and wife. 

I. DUTIES OF PARENTS,T0.THEIR. CHILDREN. 

Although some of these duties grow so naturally out of the relation it: 
self that they may be partially discovered by the mere light of nature, 
and all of them, when correctly understood, may be corroborated by hu- 
man reason, yet as revelation, our only all-sufficient and infallible guide, 
is full and explicit upon this important question, we appeal directly to 
that more ample and authoritative source. 

1. Protection and support are duties of parents to their children. 

That these obligations were recognized under the patriarchal dispen- 
sation is evident from Scripture. Jacob said to Laban: “For it was 
little which thou hadst before I came, and it is now increased unto a 
multitude; and the Lord hath blessed thee since my coming; and now, 
when shall I provide for mine own house also?” Gen. xxx. 30. St. Paul 


says to Timothy: “But if any provide not for his au, and specially 


for wrth; ! 
arinfidel™ 1 Tim, v. 8. 

The plain duty of parents, to protect and exercise a tender care over 
their children, and to provide for their comfortable support, is abun- 
dantly taught in the scriptures adduced. It is not only a dictate of 
nature, taught by the love of parents for their offspring, and enforced 
even by the instinctive regard of the inferior animal creation for their 
young, but it forms so essential an element in Christian character that 
he who neglects or disregards it is denounced as having “denied the 
faith,” and being “worse than an infidel”—that is, he is to be contemued 
as unworthy the Christian name; hence every parent is bound to the 
full discharge of this obligation, to the extent of his ability. While 
he is not allowed by Christianity to lavish upon his children superflu- 


$32 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 3. 


ities, or to deal his bounty toward them with an extravagant or waste- 
ful hand, yet he should use his utmost diligence and industry to fur- 
nish them all necessary protection, support, and comfort. 

2. Love is another.zmpor ————— 

This duty is not only enforced by one of the strongest dictates of 
nature, but it is frequently referred to in Scripture. The prophet 
exclaims: “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not 
have compassion on the son of her womb?” Isa. xlix. 15. And the 
Psalmist says: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord 
pitieth them that fear him.” Ps. cili. 13. Again, the same idea of the 
tender compassion of the parental heart is thus expressed by the 
prophet: “And I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that 
serveth him.” Mal. iii. 17. Again, how forcibly does our Saviour refer 
to the strength of this parental affection, when he demands: “If a son 
shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?’ 
etc. Luke xi. 11. 

That the Scriptures do not so much command the duty of parental af- 
fection, in express words, as refer to it as a matter whose existence is not tc 
be questioned, renders the obligation but the more palpable, and marks 
the crime of a parent who may fail in the discharge of this duty as 
one of the deepest dye. 

3. The next duty of parents to their children which we shall notice, is 
that of their training and education. 

_'Phat-Giod, under all dispensations, holds parents to strict responsi- 
bility for the training and education of their children is evident from 
the Seriptures. 

In the eighteenth chapter of Genesis, Abraham is highly commended 
of the Lord for the strict religious discipline by which he commanded 
and controlled “his children and his household after him.” 

In delivering the law to the Israelites, Moses enjoined upon parents 
the duty of attending rigidly to the training of their children. His 
language is: “And these words which I command thee this day shall 
be in thy heart; and thou shall teach them diligently unto thy chil- 
dren, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when 
thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou 
risest up.” Deut. vi. 6, 7. 

In attestation of the importance of this duty, the wise man has given 
us this proverb: “Train up a child in the way he should go; and 
wheu he is old, he will not depart from it.” Prov. xxii. 6. 

St. Paul enjoins upon parents to bring up their children “in the nur- 
ture and admonition of the Lord.” Eph. vi. 4. 


sc stitatataaatt  tiilit ie e 


Uh. xi} OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 833 


The religious training of Timothy, traced back first to his mother 
Eunice, and then to his grandmother Lois, is referred to by St. Paul 
as a great blessing (2 Tim. i. 5; iii. 15). 

It is a matter of vast importance that we have correct views in ref: 
erence to the nature of that education and training which it is the duty 
of parents to bestow upon their children. Education implies the de- 
velopment and culture of our physical, intellectual, and moral powers. 
When its benefits are fully realized, the utmost attainable. perfection 
and fruition of our complex nature are secured. In the common mode 
of speech, education is understood to relate almost exclusively to the 
scientific and literary training derived from schools. But while we 
would by no means depreciate that species of education constituting 
the principal part of academic and collegiate instruction, it must be 
admitted that it can be but secondary to moral and religious culture 
Science, in the common import of that term, is chiefly, if not solely, 
valuable as being a handmaid to religion. It is the lesser light bor- 
rowing, like the moon from the sun, her paler rays from revelation ; 
and should be pursued as tending to promote religion, and so pursued 
that it may tend in that way. 

In our original creation, the hand of God hath stamped upon the 
constitution of our nature the deep impress of immortality. This tene- 
ment of clay is ever tending to dissolution and the tomb, but the soul 
kindles with the glowing pledge of its immortality. This life is but 
the commencement of our existence. Compared with the immense ex- 
panse of eternity, it is far Jess than the mote which floats in the sun- 
beam. Itis but a microscopic speck amid the boundless universe. Can 
it be wisdom to attend to the present short-lived moment, the transient 
now, to the neglect of the infinite future? to become dazzled and over- 
whelmed with the gewgaws of a moment, while all that is truly great, 
or noble, or real, or lasting, or good, is overlooked or despised? It is 
our great business in this life to prepare for happiness in a future and 
eternal state. Our chief end is “to glorify God, and enjoy him forever.” 

But what, we inquire, is the character of that training essential to 
the attainment of this glorious consummation? The answer is at hand. 
It is mainly the training of the heart. It relates to the principles, the 
experience, and the practice of true religion. By this we mean not a 
mere culture of the head, but also a purification of the heart and regu- 
lation of the life. If we fail in securing this culture, what training 
soever we may receive beside, we are only trained up for the society of 
fiends and the wailings of the finally lost. On the other hand, if we 
secure this moral and rejigious culture in its proper and full sense, 

53 


834 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iti. B.S. 


whatsoever training we may lack beside, the grand purpose of our 
being will be realized, the high birthright of our nature—a blissful um- 
mortality—will be secured. 

In proportion to its intrinsic and acknowledged importance, Chistian 
parents generally are far more deficient in attention to the moral and 
religious culture of their children than in any other department of 
their education. In this respect, Christians of the present day were far 
excelled by the ancient people of God. Around the family hearth the 
pious Jew from night to night assembled his offspring, while he zead 
from the book of the law, expounded the sacred institutions of the true 
religion, and taught them the worship of the true God. The Jewish 
child was trained up to know “the God of his father,” and to revere 
his religion. 

If we search the records of pagan antiquity, or examine the history 
of modern idolatrous worshipers, they too, in their unfailing and rigid 
attention to the religious training of their children, may shame the 
Christian world. It is painfully humiliating to be constrained to be- 
lieve that, with many Christian parents, while great concern is evinced 
that their children be well educated in the sense in which a vain, un- 
godly world understands the subject, that the intellect be stored with 
mere scientific knowledge, so little pains are taken to secure their 
moral and religious culture. If they would secure for their sons or 
daughters distinction and preéminence, in reference to this world, they 
spare neither time, nor money, nor effort; but, if their children are ever 
to become illustrious in the sphere of moral and religious influence, in 
many cases it must be independent of all parental exertion—the heart 
of the child is left a moral waste, while the parent, it would seem, ex- 
pects his offspring to become religious by intuition. 

The great practical question before us is: By what means may the 
proper religious training of the children of the Church be secured? 
Some may suppose that, as we have the Sunday-school among us, it will 
serve the purpose of religious training better than any thing else to 
which we can resort. If all the children of Christian parents were 
regularly in the Sunday-school, as those schools are generally con 
ducted, their religious training would even then be far from being prop- 
erly secured. The Sunday-school is a noble, a Heaven-blest institution ; 
but still it cannot supersede an efficient, general system of religious 
training. 

But what is the particular kind of training needed? and by what 
means may it best be secured? The Holy Bible is unquestionably the 
volume to which we must appeal. Within its sacred lids are contained 


— 


Ch. xii.) OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 8385 


the lessons which are able to make us “ wise unto salvation.” This is 
the foundation on which we must build for all reat happiness here, and 
for eternal felicity hereafter. It is Heaven’s directory to man for the 
cure of moral evil. It contains the only authentic antidote against sin, 
and the only accredited pledge of God’s love to the world. But how 
may we succeed in imbuing the minds and hearts of the rising genera- 
tion with the important facts, the pure precepts, and the sublime doctrines 
of revelation? 

We would recommend the following plan: Let the children in each 
family be formed into a Bible-class; give them appropriate books; 
assign tc them suitable lessons, and let them be examined and instructed 
by the parent once or twice each week—let the time now wasted in idle- 
ness, or devoted to unprofitable conversation or vain amusement, be 
consecrated to the study of the sublime principles of our holy religion 
—let each “preacher in charge” see that the children of his pastorate 
are regularly classed, and diligently instructed, in Bible truth—let a 
senior Bible-class, for the edification of the members, be organized in 
each society—let the Sunday-school superintendents, teachers, and more 
advanced scholars, be included in this class—let them meet once a week, 
under the direction of the preacher, or some suitable person selected by 
him. By the adoption and diligent prosecution of this course, our 
churches will be filled with an intelligent membership, who will read, 
and study, and think, and do, as well as feel. Our Sunday-schools will 
always be abundantly furnished with well-qualified teachers. Thus, 
every minister may enter upon a field the most interesting and promis- 
ing, and, at the same time, the most favorable to his own improvement; 
and becume, according to the primitive custom of the Church, a prae- 
tical teacher of religion, having his disciples and catechumen under his 
charge. 

Thus every child may be taught, not only the geography of his 
State, but the geography of the kingdom of Immanuel—not only the 
grammar of his mother-tongue, but the grammar of the Holy Ghost— 
not only the philosophy of nature, but the philosophy of grace—not 
only the history of the United States and other countries, and the biog- 
raphy of Cesar, of Bonaparte, of La Fayette, and Washington; but also 
the history of the Jewish and Christian Churches, and the biography of 
Abraham and of Moses, of David and of Daniel, of Paul and of John, 
and of the blessed Saviour of the world. 

Once more: Let the Bible be introduced as a text-book, and its sacred 
truths taught as a science in all our schools and colleges. Text-books 
are introduced, and classes formed, and diligently instrneted and daily 


836 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii B. 3. 


examined on the sciences of history, mythology, chemistry, geology, 
astronomy, ete.; but why not on the science of theology? Where is 
the book comparable to the Bible? Where is the science so valuabie 
as that whose principles it embodies? As a history, the Bible is worth 
all the other books in the world. It carries us back to the commence 
ment of time, and records the birth of creation—it narrates the circum- 
stances of the Fall, and unfolds the redemption of man—it describes 
the manners anc customs of the most ancient and most remarkable 
people, and exhibits the wonderful interposition of God in their protec- 
tion and deliverance. As a system of doctrines, it reveals the most 
sublime and important truths, and presents the clearest and most im- 
pressive illustrations. As a code of morals, it transcends all human 
effort. It teaches us what we are, whence we came, and what we should 
be—it unfolds both our duty and destiny—it pours upon our dreary 
pathway through life a heavenly illumination to direct our footsteps, 
and cheers our anxious hearts with the hopes of a blissful immor- 
tality. 

And what good reason, we ask, can be offered in opposition to thus 
teaching the Bible in schools? Are the minds of the young to be care- 
fully and diligently stored with all science but that which is divine, and 
all knowledge but that which comes from God? Must the fabulous 
legends of Homer, the obscene pages of Horace, the blood-stained com- 
mentaries of Cesar, be the every-day study of our youth? but the 
annals of Moses, the epic of Job, the pastorals of David, the sublime 
poems of Isaiah, the irresistible logic: of Paul, the angelic ethics of 
John, and the divine philosophy of Jesus—are these to be interdicted ? 
Must they be thrust aside, or only brought incidentally to view? Is it 
right to teach heathen philusophy and pagan mythology in our schools 
and colleges? but is it wrong to introduce Christian philosophy and 
Bible theology? Surely the’Christian parent must feel that he is bound, 
by all the sacred obligations of religion, to train his children, not only 
for this world, but also for the neat—not only with a knowledge of 
human science, but with a knowledge of God and of religion. 

4, It is the d arents to govern their children. 

This parental vbligation is necessarily implied in the Scripture in. 
iunction: “Children, obey your parents.” Thus it is not only founded, 
on divine precept, but is necessarily inferable from the relation subsist- 
ing between parents and children. The helplessness and dependency 
of the child render it incapable of governing itself; and both nature 
and revelation designate the parent as the appropriate person for the 
performance of this duty 


ores ee ee ee 


Ch. xii.) OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBuk. 837 


In considering the character of parental government, the following 
particulars may be noted as matters of importance: 

First. It shoul D € in early childhood. 

AS soon as reason dawns, or the child is capable of understanding a 
command, it should be taught to obey. Commencing at this period, and 
with watchful solicitude persevering with a constant and undeviating 
course, the obligation and habit of obedience may be easily impressed 
and secured ; and, unless the child be first taught the lesson of strict and 
unvarying obedience to its parents, there can be little hope of success 
in teaching it any thing else that is good. 

Secondly. Parental government should be exercised with wniformity. 

Fickleness and unsteadiness on the part of parents will soon destroy 
their control over their children. To be strict or careless, severe or 
lenient, by turns, as whim, caprice, or humor, may happen to dictate, is 
the course for the parent to adopt if he would teach the child to despise 
all parental authority and control. 

Thirdly. This duty should be exercised with discretion. 

The parent should not make too many rules, or require too much. 
He should give advice, or counsel, when it is proper, and issue his com- 
mand only when it is necessary. Parental government should be admin- 
istered in love, and with reference to the good of the child. 

A mild, gentle, and steady course, mingling reason and instructivu 
with authority and command, if adopted by the parent, will seldom fail 
to secure the blessing of filial love and obedience; whereas, if parents 
manifest, in the control of their children, a severe, tyrannical manner, 
or a turbulent temper, they will thereby “provoke them to wrath,” in- 
stead of “bringing them up in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord.” 

Il. Phe duties of children to their parents will next be considered. 

This is expressly enjoined in the fifth commandment: “ Honor thy 
father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the 'and which 
the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Ex. xx.12. Our Saviour has repeated 
this commandment, and strongly enforced this duty (Matt. xv. 4). 5. 
Paul has also commented upon it, styling it “the first commandment 
with promise” (Eph. vi. 2)—that is, with a promise expressed; tor, 
doubtless, a promise is implied in connection with each commandment. 

The term honor, as used in this precept, is to be understood in an 
enlarged sense, as embracing the entire duty of children to parents; 
indeed, it is generally construed, and properly so, we think, as covering 
the whole ground of the duties growing out of the relation subsisting 
between inferiors and superiors. And, in this extended application, it 


838 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 3, 


not only includes the duties of children to parents, but of parents to 
children, of masters to servants, and of servants to masters; and of 
those high in station or office to the humble and obscure, and vice versa. 
We now, however, speak specially of the duties of children to their 
parents. As dove is “ the fulfilling of the law,” of course that term com- 
prehends this entire duty; but it may be more specifically considered 


1. It implies gratitude 
As no duty of children to their parents can be conceived more 


rational and imperative than that of gratitude, so no crime can be 
more detestable, or is more severely condemned in Scripture, than that 
of filial ingratitude. In reference to this sin, our Lord, quoting from 
the law (Ex. xxi. 15-17), says: “ He that curseth father or mother, let 
him die the death.” Matt. xv. 4. What can be more unnatural or re- 
volting to all the better feelings of humanity than for children to for- 
get, or not cherish with deepest emotions of gratitude and affection, the 
remembrance of that parental care and solicitude which watched over 
the helplessness and dependency of their infancy and childhood? Filial 
ingratitude can only find room in a heart bereft of all lovely and vir- 
tuous emotion. 

2. Another-duty of chil 

The Bible precept on this subject is most explicit. St. Paul says: 
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right.” Eph. vi. 1. 
And again: “Children, obey your parents in all things; for this is well- 
pleasing unto the Lord.” Col. iii. 20. From these scriptures we learn that 
this requirement of obedience is universal, with but one exception—it is to 
be “in the Lord”—that is, the obligation to obey becomes void when the 
requirement is contrary to the law of God. In such eases, the apostolic 
maxim, “ We ought to obey God rather than men,” should be observed ; 
but this exception to the rule can only apply when children are of age 
and discretion to judge for themselves concerning the divine law. 
With this single exception, the obligation on children to obey their 
parents is universal and imperative; and this obedience should be ren- 
dered in a ready, docile, and cheerful spirit and manner. 

Should parents, however, be so tyrannical and unreasonable as te 
require their children to engage in a matrimonial alliance with persons 
for whom they cannot have that esteem and love which the conjugal 
vow requires; or, should they so exercise authority over their children 
as to infringe upon that liberty of conscience on the subject of religion 
which is the scriptural birthright of children as well as parents—in such 
cases, as obedience to parents would involve disobedience to God, it 
ceases to be the duty of children. 


—_ a eer ™ 


Ch. xii. OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 839 


The exceptions to the law requiring filial obedience are few, and of 
seldom oceurrence. The child should never disobey the parent. till, 
after mature consideration, and having counseled with judicious friends, 
the conviction is clear in his own mind that the parental! command re 
quires what is contrary to the command of God. 


3. Reverence pr parents is another filial duty. 
This is clearly implied by the letter of the law itself: “Honor thy 


father and thy mother.” As nothing can be more unnatural, so no sin 
ig more ignominious, in the view of all virtuous minds, than that of 
irreverence or disrespect for parents. This reverence for parents, how- 
ever, should be distinguished from a servile fear or dread. It should be 
mixed with confiding esteem and love. 

Children should be slow to observe the faults and infirmities of their 
parents. By kind, respectful words, by gentle and submissive behavior 
—indeed, in their entire demeanor—they should evince that they look 
up to their parents as their superiors. When children forget to respect 
their parents, they themselves lose the respect of all the better class of 
society, and seldom fail to bring upon themselves degradation and ruin, 
How full of meaning is the exhortation of the apostle, “Honor thy 
father and mother; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live 
long on the earth”! Significantly was it written by Solomon: “The 
eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the 
ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.” 
Proyaxxxstl, 

A. Protection, support, and comfort, in seasons of affliction and amid 
the infirmities of age, are emphatically due from children to parents. 
This is clearly inferable from the general tenor of Scripture. It flows 
necessarily from the great law of love—it is embodied in our Saviour’s 
precept of doing to others as we would that they should do to us. In- 
deed, such is the extent under which children are indebted to their 
parents, that, when they do all in their power to bless, comfort, and pro- 
vide for them, in every hour of affliction and need, they never can fully 
repay what they owe. Hard and fiend-like must be the heart of that 
child who can witness the want of a father or mother, and fail to ex- 
tend «very possible relief. If both nature and Scripture dictate that 
parents, when they can, should “lay up for their children,” the same 
considerations require that children, when their parents are needy or 
afflicted, should render them all the comfort and assistance in their 
power. 


840 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii B. 3 


QUESTIONS ON CHATTER XII. 


Question 1. Whence may we learn the; 5. How may it best be performed ? 


a duties of parents and children ? 6. The fourth, and how should it ve 
2. What is implied in the first parental performed ? 
duty specified, and by what scrip-; 7. How is the first duty of children te 
tures is it established ? parents proved and illustrated? 
3. The second, and how is it proved? 8. The second ? 


4 What is the third duty of parents| 9. The third? 
name, and how is it proved? 10. The fourth? . 


Ch, xiii. OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR, 841 


CHAPTER XIII. 


OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR — APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO SPE: 
CIAL CASES AND CONDITIONS—RULERS AND SUBJECTS. 


Iw a political or civil sense, whether the governing power be styled 
emperor, king, monarch, sovereign, president, governor, ruler, judge, or 
patriarch, there are important duties pertaining to this political relation 
obligatory on both the rulers and the persons ruled. Although we have 
no evidence that the people of any country ever assembled en masse to 
form a civil compact, and so originate a government by formal stipula- 
tion between the governors and the governed, yet, in the nature of things, 
it is theoretically assumed that such a compact, by tacit implication, 
exists in all political establishments. Both the parties concerned possess 
distinct and separate rights, and out of these rights grow reciprocal 
obligations. 

Al) civil governments are commonly embraced in four classes 
the monarchical, the aristocratic, the republican or democratic, and the 
mixed. 

In a monarchy, the governing power is in the hands of a single person, 
usually styled emperor, king, or autocrat; in an aristocracy, this power is 
in the hands of the nobility, or principal persons of the State; in a 
republic or democracy, this power resides in the people, and is exercised 
either in their collective capacity, or through their representatives; a mixed 
government partakes to some extent of more than one of the preceding 
characteristics. 

But, whatever may be the form of government, there are important 
duties growing out of this relation to which we call attention. 

I. WE NOTICE THE DUTIES OF RULERS. 

These grow out of certain important inherent rights which all men 
are supposed to possess, and which the government to which they sub- 
mit is bound to protect and defend. The principal of these rights are 

those of “personal security, personal liberty, and. private. property.” In 
the possession of these. the gover ‘ment, or rulers, are bound to protect 
the citizens. 


842 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [F. iii. B, 3 


1. It is the duty of the government.to extend to all its suojects personal 
securi _ Sema i 

This implies the preservation of the person of each individual from 
the lawless, violent, or injurious attacks, of all persons whatsoever. It 
cannot be supposed that any government is capable of extending this 
protection, absolutely and perfectly, to all its subjects — this would re- 
quire the governing powers to possess all the attributes of omniscience, 
ntanipresence, and omnipotence, none of which can pertain to any being 
but God; none but He can be everywhere present, beholding the evil 
an the good, and possess the wisdom and power sufficient to prevent 
every injurious or violent act which vicious persons may be disposed to 
perpetrate in reference to their fellows. All that civil rulers can do is. 
to enact wholesome laws for the protection of all the rights of the peo- 
ple, and to see that these laws are not only sanctioned by adequate pen- 
alties, but administered and executed with due fairness and impartiality, 
and with as little delay as possible. When this is done, each citizen 
possesses a reasonable assurance that the ruling power to whose author: 
ity he submits, not only respects and looks after his rights, but that, 
when they are infringed or violated, it provides an adequate remedy for 
the redress of the wrong; and thus he is furnished by his government 
with all that personal security which the nature of the case admits. 
More than this the government could not bestow, but this much it is 
Sound to extend. 

PAA be iberty—Several important items are embraced in that 
personal liberty which it is the duty of all good governments to secure 
to its subjects. 

(1) The freedom of locomotion, or the right of transit from one part 
of the country to another, is a privilege which should be denied te 
none, except as a punishment for crime. As God has bestowed upor, 
all men this power of travel, and as it contributes greatly to the well- 
being and happiness of society, and as government is ordained and 
sanctioned, not as an engine of oppression, but as an instrument of good 
to the community, it follows that it is the duty of those who bear rule 
to secure tc every subject the right of passing at will from one portion 
of th» country to another, and to fix his residence wherever choice or 
interest may dictate, provided he interfere not with the rights of others. 

(2) Another right which it is the duty of the government to se- 
eure to each citizen is, the pursuit of happiness, by engaging in any 
lawful calling, business, or profession, he may select. In a good gov- 
ernment, exclusive privileges or monopolies should not be eonferred on 
‘orporations, or individuals, to the general detriment of the commu. 


Ch. xiii.] OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 842 


nity. Restrictive regulations are only proper when it is clear that the 
general welfare will be promoted thereby. 

(3) Government should secure to its sul jects ibert lence. By 
this we mean the right of every man to the fs career 
of his opinions on all subjects, whether political or rel igious ; provided 
he infringes no law, produces no riot or disturbance, and does not molest 
others in the enjoyment of their rights. 

As religion is a concern between each individual and his Maker, 
nothing can be more incongruous and absurd than for one class of per- 
sons to prescribe a system of faith, or mode of worship, for the rest ; nor 
can it be at all admissible for rulers to interpose between their subjects 
and God, so as to interfere with the rights of conscience. 

Conscience, it is true, is often not well informed, and, in such cases, is 
not_an_infallible guide ; yet it is also true that no man has aright to 

act contrary to the dictates of-his-conscience, nor can he do so without 
~ incurring guilt. The criminality of all wrong actions, which are per- 
formed in accordance with the dictates of conscience, results solely 
from the fact that the individual has sinfully neglected the means of 
enlightening his conscience. 

Since, then, no one can act in violation of his conscience without in- 
curring guilt, it results from the same principle of reasoning, that it 
would be tyrannical and wrong for any civil government not to protect 
its citizens in the full exercise of liberty of conscience. In the politica] 
systems of all Protestant countries these sacred rights are now well 
secured ; and, in view of the rapid progress of liberal principles char- 
acterizing the present age, we may reasonably hope that the day is at 
hand when all men in all lands will be secured in the inestimable right 
of freedom of faith and speech, and allowed, without fear or intimida- 
tion, to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. 


3. The right of Piition mee 
This should be secured by government to every citizen. This right 


is not only in manifest accordance with nature, but is plainly recog 
nized in Scripture. The divine law, forbidding theft, robbery, fraud, and 
Visi-onesty, in every shape, presupposes the right of property ; for these 
sins are but specifications of the various methods of violating that right. 

It is not to be supposed that any code of human laws, however judi- 
riously framed or faithfully administered, can extend to every citizen 
2omplete protection in the right of his property. Such is the cunning 
craftiness of wicked, dishonest men, that, while fraudulently filching 
from the hand of honest industry the fruit of its labor, they will find 
many ways of evading the best of human laws, and of escaping the 


844 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 3 


penalty they justly deserve; but it is the duty of rulers to do all in 
their power to protect the owner of property in his possessions. In this 
way governors should be “ for the- punishment of evil-doers, and for the 
praise of them that do well.” 1 Pet. ii. 14. 

It is not only the prerogative, but the duty, of civil government, with 
solicitous care, to use all appropriate means to promote the peace, safety, 
prosperity, and happiness of the people. This will include treaties of 
amity and commerce with foreign States, the regulation of trade, and 
the mutual exchange of commodities at home, the encouragement of 
the arts and sciences, of agriculture and manufactures, of industry and 
economy, of sobriety and good order, and especially of education, mo- 
rality, and religion. A State which looks with indifference upon these 
interests must be greatly derelict in duty, and those functionaries in- 
trusted with the management and control of her affairs will have a 
fearful account to render for the neglect of the welfare and happiness 
of the people over whom, in the providence of God, they have been 
placed as rulers. 

Il. THE DUTIES OF CITIZENS TO THE GOVERNMENT. 

1. Submission to the civil. authorities, and obedience to the laws, is a 
prime duty of every citizen, r 

On this subject St. Paul says: “Let every soul be subject unto the 
higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that 
be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, re: 
sisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to 
themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but 
to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that 
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same; for he is the 
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, 
be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister 
of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Where- 
fore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ 
sake.” Rom. xiii. 1-5. 

The submission and implicit obedience to the authority of civil 
rulers here inculeated by the apostle, are rendered imperative by two 
considerations: First. Without this submission and obedience there can 
be no civil government, and civil government is essential to the general 
good of society. Secondly. Civil government is “ od”—that is, it 
exists by his sanction, and according to his providence. Henceracrard: 
ing to this general principle, he that resisteth the civil authority “ re- 
sisteth the ordinance of God.” 

But, it may be asked, is rebellion against the civil government under 


Ch. xiii.) OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR. 846 


whose auspices, in the providence of God, our lot has been cast hever 
justifiable ? 

To this we reply— 

(1) No personal immorality, imbecility, or bad conduct, on the part 
of rulers, while the constitution is maintained in good faith, can justify 
rebellion. The personal character of a ruler is one thing, and his 
official character is another thing. He may be immoral and profligate 
in his private life, and yet comparatively a good civil ruler; or he 
may be unimpeachable in his private character, and tyrannical and 
unsafe as a civil ruler. For his private conduct he is amenable to God; 
but, for his oficial acts, to the constitution and the people over whom he 
holds dominion, 

(2) The cases in which rebellion against’ the authorities of civil 
government may ry be justifiable, are “exceedingly rare; yet they sometimes 
do occur Rebellion is a remedy so terrible in its chersicter and conse- 
quences, that it should never be resorted to except in cases of extreme 
necessity, and after all milder means of redress have been tried in vain. 
Rebellion is never justifiable when the evils proposed to be remedied 
are less than those which rebellion would be likely to involve. In such 
cases, great evils had better be borne for a season, rather than incur 
greater evils by attempting their removal. 

It may be safe to conclude— 

First. When rulers are attempting to subvert the constitution, and to 
overthrow the liberties of the people by usurpation, it may be justifiable 
in the people to resist that usurpation—yea, it would be their duty to 
arise in their majesty and hurl the usurpers from their places of author- 
ity, and thus preserve intact the constitution, which is the great sheet- 
anchor of their sacred rights. 

‘ Secondly. When the government itself has become so corrupt, or the 
constitution so defective, that the endurance of the existing state of 
things would be a greater evil than the probable calamities sf revolu- 
tion—in such ease, if there be a reasonable probability that revolution 
may be conducted to a successful issue, and a better government estab- 
lished, then it would not only be a justifiable act, but one demanded by 
the noble impulses of manhood and true patriotism, for the people te 
rise in rebellion against a corrupt government or tyrannical usurpation, 
and thus mutually pledge to each other “ their lives, fortune, and sacred 
honor,” while issuing their solemn declaration of freedom and inde: 
pendence. 
2. Patriotism, or love of our country, is a duty incumbent on every 
citizen. The s same natural tie that binds to the love of fi amily, kindred. 


owe 8 Oe Psy, ew A 


846 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B, 3. 


and home, originates the obligation and suggests the impulse of patriot- 
ism. How deep, yet how manly, was this feeling in the heart of the 
exiled Jew—“ If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget 
her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the 
roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy”! 
Ps. exxxvii. 5,6. And how full of more than patriotic emotion must 
have been the heart of St. Paul, when he exclaimed: “I have great 
heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that 
myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen accord- 
ing to the flesh”! Rom. ix. 2, 3. 

The same patriotic emotion has been beautifully described by the 
poet: 

“ Breathes there a man with soul so dead, 


Who never to himself hath said, 
This is my ‘own, my native land 


1? 


The duty of patriotism is manifested by doing all in our power to 
sustain our institutions, and promote the prosperity of our country. 
This requires us— 

(1) To contribute our means. The apostle says: “For this cause 
pay ye tribute also. . . . Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to 
whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; 
honor to whom honor.” Rom. xiii. 6, 7. 

(2) This duty requires respect and reverence for our rulers. “ Curse 
not the king, nc, not in thy thought” (Eccl. x. 20), is the admo- 
nition of Solomon. St. Paul quotes from Moses: “Thou shalt not speak 
evil of the ruler of thy people.” Acts xxiii.5. The ruler of the people 
is styled “the minister of God ;” hence he is worthy of due reverence, for 
his office’ sake. . 

(3) It is the duty of every citizen to offer prayer for his rulers, and 
for the prosperity of his country. “Pray for the peace of Jerusa- 
lem” (Ps. exxii. 6), is the exhortation of David. St. Paul teaches us to 
pray “for kings, and for all that are in authority.” 1 Tim. ii. 2. The 
propriety and utility of this scriptural duty must be manifest to every 
serious, reflecting mind. It tends to preserve a continual memory of 
our indebtedness to God for the gracious providence which confers upon 
us all our social, political, and religious blessings, and to teach us our 
dependence upon him for their continuance. 

Having considered, in its different phases, our duty to our neighbor, 
both in reference to its general principles and its application to specific 
conditions or relations in life, we inquire, in conclusion, how this impor 
tant duty may be performed. 


Sa aS ieee 


th. xiii.) OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR, 847 


We reply, that mere unassisted nature is inadequate cither fully to 
impart the knowledge of this duty, or to enable us to perform it when 
understood. As, without revelation, we may grope forever in the dark, 
unable to learn correctly what our duty to our neighbor implies, so, 
without the aid of divine grace and the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
our utmost efforts for the proper performance of that duty will be fruit- 
less. As “no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy 
Ghost,” so no man can do those things which the law of God _ requires, 
but through the aid of that Holy Spirit which God has promised to 
impart, in virtue of the atonement of Christ, to all them that believe. 

When we consider that the divine “commandment is exceeding 
broad,” not only requiring uprightness of conduct, but extending to the 
thoughts of the heart, and at the same time reflect on our utter help. 
lessness and depravity, we may well exclaim: “Who is sufficient for 
these things?” But when we think of the fullness of the promise of 
divine grace, we may say, with the apostle, “I can do all things through 
Christ who strengtheneth me.” 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIII. 


Question 1. Into what kinds may civil| 6. What, then, is the duty of gov- 
governments be divided? L ernors ? 
2. What are the principal duties of | 7. To what extent is the subject bound 


rulers? to obey the civil rulers? 

3. Is conscience an infallible guide to} 8 Is rebeliion ever justifiable? and if 
duty? so, under what circumstances? 7 

4. Can we violate its dictates without | 9. Do the Scriptures sanction the virtue 
guilt? of patriotism ? 

5. Can civil government extend abso-| 10. By what means may we be able te 
lute protection to every citizen as perform our whole duty ? 


to his rights? 


843 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. ut B. 3, 


CHAPTER XIV. 


CHRISTIAN CONSECRATION. 


THE great duty unfolded in this chapter, in strictness of speech, is 
comprised in our duty both to God and to our neighbor. We present 
it as a fundamental principle of Christian morals, that every Christian, 
by uniting with the Church, enters upon a solemn promise and pledge to 
submit to its order and discipline, and to consecrate to the cause of God 
and to the interests of the kingdom of Christ-his-diligent-and—fwithful-ser- 
vice, devoting thereto, after providing for his own household,” his time, 
talents, labors,.and_sybstance. — 

The principle involved in this proposition is one of the most fearfully 
neglected and overlooked, and at the same time one of the most vitally 
important, matters connected with the morals of Christianity. It is 
mainly owing to the neglect of this principle that the cause of Chris- 
tianity has made comparatively so little progress in the world; and it 
is by the revival and restoration of this principle to its primitive, seript- 
ural position and influence, that a new era shall one day dawn upon the 
Church, and the world shall be converted to God; hence it will appear 
of very great importance that we examine carefully the authority upon 
which the proposition rests and the sense in which it is to be understood 
and applied. 

I, The autHortry for the principle of Christian consecration to the 
cause of God, as well as the sense in which the doctrine is to be under- 
stood and applied, rests on the example of the first.Christian. 
under the organization of the apostles, and numerous scriptures to the 
same effect. 

1. In the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles we learn that 
“all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold 
their possessions and goods, and_ parted them to all men as every man 
had need. And they continuing daily with one accord in the temple, 
and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with glad- 
ness and singleness of heart.” 

In Acts iv. 832-35 we read as follows: “And the multitude of them 
that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any of 


Ch. xiv] CURISTIAN CONSECRATION. 849 


them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they 
had all things common. . . . Neither was there any among them that 
lacked ; for as many as were possessors of houses or lands sold them, 
and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them 
down at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man 
according as he had need.” 

We see here a picture of the spirit with which the first Christians at 
Jerusalem consecrated themselves and their substance to the cause of 
God. All this occurred under the eye, and with the approving codp- 
eration, of the apostles. It is not, however, contended that the exam- 
ple here exhibited, so far as a community of goods is concerned, was in- 
tended as a precedent for the imitation of the Church in after time. 
The reverse is evident from the fact that this plan was not adopted in 
any of the other Churches, and it lasted but a short period at Jeru- 
salem; but yet there are some parts of this history that do exhibit the 
conduct of these first Christians in the light of an example. They 
gave “to all men as every man had need.” “ Neither was there any 
among them that lacked.” These expressions show that the object in 
disposing of their possessions was to supply the wants of the needy. 
To this they were impelled by the principles of that gospel they had 
received. Perhaps, under their circumstances, this object could in no 
other way be so well accomplished. If so, we see their obligation to do 
as they did. . 

But a change of circumstances, rendering a community of goods in- 
expedient, cannot release from the obligation to relieve the needy. The 
principle of deadness to the world and love for Christ and his followers 
still remains the same. Actuated by the same heavenly principle, we 
are bound to be willing, as circumstances may require, to make sacri- 
fices equally great. 

2. But we proceed to show that the principle of entire consecration 
to the cause of God, so illustriously exhibited by these first Christians, 
is abundantly taught in various parts of the Scriptures. 

“Hear some of the words of our Lord: “Lay not up for yourselves 
treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where 
thieves break through and steal.” Matt. vi. 19. 

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and 
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. 
Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.” Matt. vi. 24. 

“T say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of un 
righteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting 
habitations.” Luke xvi. 9. 

54 


850 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY.  , [P. iii. B. 3 


“Tt is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for 
a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” Matt. xix. 24. 

St. Paul says: “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, 
and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” 2 Cor. 
ERO NT. 

“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, 
especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Gal. vi. 10. 

“Godliness with contentment is great gain; for we brought. nothing 
inte this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.” 1 Tim. 
vi6, 7; 

“Charge them that are rich in this world, . . . that they be ready 
to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves 
a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on 
eternal life.” 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18, 19. 

“God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love, 
which ye have showed toward his name in that ye have ministered to 
the saints, and do minister.” Heb. vi. 10. 

“To do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such sacri- 
fices God is well pleased.” Heb. xiii. 16. 

“For they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and 
into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction 
and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil; which while 
some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced them- 
selves through with many sorrows.” 1 Tim. vi. 9, 10. 

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, 
his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of 
obedience unto righteousness.” Rom. vi. 16. 

“Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price; therefore 
glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.” 1 Cor, 
viel 9.5.20. 

St. John says: “ Whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother 
have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how 
dwelleth the love of God in him?” 1 John iii. 17. 

None can carefully consider these plain texts of Scripture and not 
sve that it is the duty of the followers of Christ to consecrate them- 
selves, with all they have and are, to the cause of God? They are not 
allowed to “lay up treasures on earth.” This command is as positive 
as, “Thou shalt not steal;” and yet how little is it regarded! Mr. 
Wesley, on this text, says: “If you aim at laying up treasures on earth, 
you are not barely losing your time, and spending your strength for 
that which is not bread; for what is the fruit, if you succeed? You 


Ch. xiv.] CHRISTIAN CONSECRATION. 851 


have murdered your own soul. You have thrown away treasure in 
heaven. God and Christ are lost! You have gained riches and hell 
fire!” 

Look also at that other text: “They that will be rich,” etc. On this 
passage the same author remarks: “Those who calmly desire, and delib- 
erately seek, to attain them (riches), whether they do in fact gain the 
world or no, do infallibly lose their own souls. These are they that 
sell him who bought them with his blood for a few pieces of gold or 
silver.” 

Are there not thousands in all the Churches around us who are not 
only “rich” — worth fourfold more than is requisite for “ providing 
for their own households” —but are using their utmost efforts to 
gather riches in yet greater abundance, while the cause of God, of hu- 
manity, of religion, is left to languish? While many of them are roll- 
ing in wealth, luxuriating in fashionable pomp and splendor, the Lord’s 
poor are suffering for bread, and the heathen perishing for lack of 
knowledge. 

Again, look at the declaration of St. Paul to the Corinthians: “Ye 
are not your own, ye are bought with a price.” How many among us 
act as though they did not believe this scripture! They pursue the 
things of this world, lay up treasures on earth, and seek to enlarge 
their estate, with as much zeal and perseverance as those who are pro 
fessedly of the world. 

Our Lord’s parable of the Talents clearly teaches that we are under 
obligations tc render to God all the service in our power. Here we are 
taught that all we are and all we have belong to God. He hath in- 
trusted us with Ais goods. We are required to use them, not for our 
own aggrandizement, but for the interests of his kingdom. If we fail 
to use them for his glory, we are culpable in his sight, and will be pun- 
ished avcordingly. The Christian is represented as “dead” to the 
world, and is exhorted to “set his affection on things above,” and to 
“seek those things which are above.” But how can he obey these pre- 
cepts, while the love of the world, the thirst for riches, and the pursuit 
of gain are the great absorbing concerns of his life? 

He should be diligent in business; but the great object and aim 
of all his pursuits should be, not the amassing of wealth, or the laying 
up of a fortune for his cnildren, but the promotion of the glory of God. 
by doing good, and advancing the interests of his kingdom. After 
providing things needful for ourselves and household, whatever else of 
this world we accumulate or possess belongs to God and his cause. It 
is bot our own, and we “rob God” if we appropriate it for the personal 


852 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii. B. 8 


emolument of ourselves or our children after us. Lf this be not the 
gospel-requirement, then we cannot comprehend the teachings of Christ 
and his aposties. 

II. Ossecrions to this doctrine of entire consecration will no doubt 
be urged. It strikes at the root of the crying sin of the age—the vice 
of avarice. It will be opposed by the worldly-minded, the avaricious, 
the proud, the vain, the ambitious, the selfish, the ungodly; but it wil! 
meet the approval of the heavenly-minded, the benevolent, the humble, 
the meek, the cross-bearing, the compassionate, the pure in heart. If 
adopted by the Churches generally, it would produce a revolution in 
Christian practice such as has not been witnessed perhaps since the 
apostolic age. Men of the world, and living after the world, have 
flooded the Churches; but few comparatively are holy, and entirely con- 
secrated to God. 

Were the principle of entire consecration to God of time, talents, 
services, and substance, generally urged by the Churches, the lines 
would soon be more distinctly drawn between “the precious and the 
vile,” between such as follow Christ for “the loaves and fishes” and such 
as follow him because they are his friends, ready to do his bidding. No 
genuine Christian would falter in the ranks. The half-hearted, the real 
worldlings, the selfish, and the covetous, would soon ery out: “ This is 
a hard saying, who can hear it?” Loving this present world, they would 
forsake the Saviour; but the genuine Christian, the kind, the benevolent, 
the good, would rally with renewed energy around the blessed cross— 
they would rise a mighty host in the name of Christ, and go forth with 
resistless power, and push the battle to the gate of the enemy. Before 
the influence of Christians thus devoted to God, living for God, labor- 
ing and suffering for God, walking “by faith and not by sight,” in- 
flamed by holy zeal, warmed by heavenly love, trampling beneath their 
feet the pomp of the world, and esteeming “all things but loss for the 
excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus ;” before the influence of 
such a Christian band the heart of stone would melt, the scoffer would 
be silenced, the sinner would tremble, infidelity would be struck dumh, 
and hell, in its gloomy center, would feel the shock. Such a religion 
the world once saw, when the holy apostles were the preachers, and thou- 
sands were bowing at the foot of the cross. Such a religion the world 
shall see again, when “ Zion shall arise and shake herself from the 
dust,” when “the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom and 
possess the kingdom,” when the Rider upon the “ white horse shall go 
forth conquering and to conquer.” In a word, such must be the zeal 
and devotion of the Church before the world shall be converted. 


Ch. xiv.] CHRISTIAN CONSECRATION. 853 


The great heathen world is now open for the gospel. All that is 
needed is the men and the means, and, with the promised blessing of 
God, the conversion of the world to Christianity shall g.on be read on 
earth on the page of history, and heralded through heaven by the apoe- 
alyptic angel’s trump. 

When men and means are wanted for the purpose of war, the work 
of blood and slaughter, how soon are the magazines of earth opened to 
pour out their treasures and the plains covered with the marshaling 
hosts! Let but a similar zeal inspire the Church, and the friends of 
Christ be willing to rally round the cross of Calvary, and pour into 
the treasury of the Lord the wealth now corrupting in the coffers of 
the rich, who “ profess and call themselves Christians,” and we shall 
soon send armies and armaments to China and Japan, to Hindoostan 
and Oceanica; and “ Ethiopia shall stretch forth her hands to God,” 
while “ the isles shal] wait for his law.” 

1. But it may be objected that the carrying out of this entire consecra- 
tion to God is impracticable. 

~~Tf so, then Christianity is a failure, and the most glowing prophecies 
of the Bible a delusion! Why impracticable? Did it not exist at the 
glorious birthday of the gospel Church? Has it not since been real- 
ized by various individuals in different ages? Were not such men as 
Luther, Baxter, Latimer, Wesley, Whitefield, Fletcher, Brainerd, Car- 
vosso, Summerfield, and various others, who gave themselves, their 
time, talents, labors, and substance, to God, entirely consecrated to his 
holy cause? Let but the great body of professed Christians come up 
firmly and unitedly to the same standard, and the work is accomplished. 
If this entire consecration be right, it cannot be impracticable. What 
ovght to be done, may be done. It is practicable. It can be realized. 
It must be realized, or the world will never be converted. But God 
has said: “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as 
the waters cover the sea.” 

Let the principle of entire consecration to God be incorporated as 
an essential disciplinary requirement of the Church. Let it be ex- 
plained, and urged upon all, as one of the great laws of the kingdom 
of Christ. Let it be plainly set forth, so that all in the Church, or 
proposing to enter it, may know at once that it is expected that all the 
faithful shall obey this precept with as much strictness as any other. 
Were this the case, what a marked difference there would be between 
the Church and the world! 

2. But this would provoke persecution. Suppose it did. So would the 
keeping of many other commandments. “They that will live godly ir 


854 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iii, B 3. 


Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” If this principle be right, if it 
be a gospel axiom, which we are convinced none can deny without 
arraying themselves directly against the Scripture, it necessarily follows 
that no Christian, properly understanding the subject, can refuse obe- 
dience to this obligation without “denying the faith, and being worse 
than an infidel.” It is better not to profess the name of Christ than, 
after having done so, obstinately to refuse to do what he commands. 

III. Excouracement.—But there is a bright side to this subject, 
When this principle shall be carried out in any one Church, that 
Church will be a Goshen in the land of darkness, Its example will 
shine forth as a standing reproof to all others. It will be like one of 
the “two witnesses, prophesying in sackcloth.” Its influence would 
soon be felt. The example would be exhibited of a band of Christians 
living together in pure Christian love and fellowship. Its widows 
would all be provided for, its poor all supported, its children all edu- 
cated, all its interests amply sustained, and its missionaries sent abroad 
to bear to other portions of the world the glad tidings of salvation. 

Were the Churches generally to carry out this principle of entire 
consecration, the influence would be like a sweeping revolution, not 
scattering death and destruction in its track, but sanctifying the 
Church, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, supplying the wants 
of the needy, visiting the sick, converting the world. 

The wealth, learning, talent, influence, and power, now in_ possession 
of the professed followers of Christ, if properly wielded, would form a 
mighty river, defying in its majestic sweep all opposition, and bearing 
upon its bosom the blessings of peace, prosperity, happiness, and eter- 
nal life, to all the nations of the earth. 

Religion is intended to unite man to his fellow-man, and all to God. 
This it is destined to accomplish. When once the glorious principles 
of the gospel, in all their purity and perfection, shall possess the hearts, 
and mold the lives, of all the people of the earth, “ violence shall no more 
be heard in our land, nor wasting, nor destruction, within our borders.” 
Then shall the voice from heaven proclaim to a converted world: 
“Thy sun shall no more go down, neither shall thy moon withdraw 
itself; for the Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of 
thy mourning shall be ended.” 


Ch. xiv.) - CHRISTIAN CONSECRATION §55 


/ QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIV. 

Question 1. On what do the authority | 4. What are some of the principal of 
for the principle of Christian conse- the other scriptures quoted on the 
eration to God and the sense in subject? 
which it is to be understood rest? | 5. What objections to the carrying out 

2 What proof is founded on the exam- of the principles of Christian con- 
ple of the first Christians? secration are mentioned ? 


3 In what sense is the ‘community of |6. How may these objections be an- 
goods” established by the Church at swered? 
Jerusalem a model for the imitation | 7. How does it appear that- there w a 
of other Churches? bright side to this subject? 


PART IV.—THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY, 


BOOK 1.—THE CHRISTIAN CILURCH 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


ITS ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT, AND POLITY—-INTRODUCTORY. 


ArrnouGn there has been much controversy, in different ages, ou 
the subject of Church-government and polity, yet we are persuaded that, 
since the Lutheran Reformation, this department of theological science 
has not received a degree of attention commensurate with its impor- 
tance. With many of the Protestant denominations, the leading doe- 
trines of Christianity have been viewed of paramount importance, while 
Church-polity has been considered a matter of minor consequence. 
Voluminous controversial writings have been put forth on the mooted 
questions between Calvinists and Arminians, and between Socinians, 
Pelagians, Unitarians, or Universalists, on the one hand, and Trinitarians 
on the other hand; yet a comparatively small space has been allowed 
to the great questions pertaining to the organization and polity of the 
Church. It is true the leading points dividing Episcopalians and Pres- 
byterians on this subject, and some other questions that might be named, 
have been extensively discussed ; but these controversies have too gene- 
rally been conducted in a deeply partisan spirit—each writer assuming 
that the organization with which he is connected is right in all things, 
and endeavoring so to construe the Scriptures as to sustain his pre- 
adopted theory. 

It is also remarkable that, in much of the discussion upon this sub- 
ject, too little appeal has been made to the teachings of Scripture. 
Many of the disputants have relied mainly, if not exclusively, in the 
defense of their views, on arguments founded alone on reason and expe- 
diency. 

(857) 


R58 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv. B. 1 


In the views maintained in this treatise, the principle by which we 
have been governed is, that the Bible, in regard to those great points 
in reference to which it furnishes clear information or explicit warrant, 
whether by express precept or apostolic example, is our infallible stand- 
ard and authoritative guide; but that, in all matters of detail not set 
forth in Scripture, we should be guided by the principles of reason 
and expediency ; provided only, that no regulation be adopted incon- 
sistent with Scripture, 

In the ensuing chapters, the following leading positions will be found, 
with more or less fullness, set forth and defended : 


1. That the Christian Church is, in an important sense, a divine insti-_ 


tution. 

2. That the Scriptures do:set forth, so far as some leading foundation 
principles are concerned, a form of.Church-government ; and that, thus 
far, all Churches should be conformed to the Scripture model. 

3. That in much of the detail pertaining to Church-polity the Scrip- 
tures give no specific instructions; and that, in relation to all such 
matters, Churches are left to be guided by the principles of reason and 
expediency. 

4. That our Saviour vested in his inspired apostles authority to organ- 
ize and “set inorder” his Church, and to exercise under him, so long 
as they lived, supreme jurisdiction and control over it. 

5. That the apostolic office, so far as it implied divine inspiration and 
miraculous powers, ceased with the original apostles; but, so far as it im- 
plied a divine commission to preach the gospel to all the world, and to 
administer the sacraments and discipline of the Church, it is to be per- 
petuated “alway, even unto the end of the world.” 

6. That the inspired apostles deposited that portion of their preroga- 
tive which was to be perpetuated in the ordained eldership (bishops, or 
presbyters), who are their proper scriptural successors, 

7. That these bishops, presbyters, or pastors (or by whatever name 
they may be distinguished), to whom is committed the oversight and 
government of the Church, should, as expediency may require, exercise 
that oversight and government in part through the medium of councils, 
presbyteries, synods, conferences, or conventions. They should also, so 
far as expediency may dictate, arrange for the assistance and codper- 
ation of the laity, yet so as still to retain within their own hands the 
power of government with which the Head of the Church has invested 
them. 

8. Each organized Church shuld be placed under the pastoral charge 
of an ordained bishop, elder, or minister. 


Introductory. ] THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 859 


9. Ministers not in charge of organized Churches should be employed 
as evangelists, or missionaries, in getting up and organizing new 
Churches. 

10. The elders, to whom pertain the government of the Churches, 
should arrange for the episcopal or the presbyterial plan—for the itin- 
erant or the more settled pastoral relation — according as they may 
judge the one or the other to be expedient, in view of securing the 
great object of the ministry—the supply of the Churches vues pastors, 
and the establishment of the gospel in new places. 

11. There are two orders of ministers: First, elders (otherwise termed 
bishops, or pastors), in whom is vested the prerogative of government 
and ordination; secondly, deacons, an order of ministers inferior to 
elders, not vested with the prerogative of government or ordination, but 
who are assistants of the elders, and who, after using “the office of a 
deacon well,” may be entitled by promotion to the full prerogatives of 
the ministry. 

12. The rulers.of the Church, in administering its government, are 
bound to observe the laws laid down in Scripture; nor have they a right 
to adopt any regulation inconsistent therewith. 


860 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iv. B. 1 


CHAPTER I. 
FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 


ALL societies, institutions, and organizations, must be either human or 
dwine in their origin. When human, those who establish them, or unite 
in their organization, possess the prerogative of arranging their consti- 
tution according to their pleasure. 

In a political point of view, although some forms of government may 
combine more advantages than others, and be far preferable to them, 
yet no nation or people can be required to adopt any particular form 
of government when they deem another form better, but all are prop- 
erly left in this matter to judge for themselves. They may make an 
unwise choice—they may choose an aristocracy, when a monarchy would 
be more suitable to their condition; or a monarchy, when a republic or 
a mixed government would be much more beneficial—but in this they 
are not to be arbitrarily controlled by a foreign influence. If they 
choose to make a bad selection, they will, of course, suffer the evil 
consequences, but they may not rightfully be molested in the exercise 
of their own choice. This right of choice cannot be trampled upon, 
except by the foot of tyranny. 

All communities or conventions of persons, possessing the right to 
establish a constitution for their own government, have not only the 
right to choose their own form of government, but they may incorpo- 
rate in it any principles, ceremonies, or penalties, they please, so that 
they do not infringe upon the rights and prerogatives of others; and 
ip the exercise of this right they are accountable to God alone. 

The same principle applies to all voluntary benevolent associations. 
These being merely human institutions, those who unite in their organi- 
zation are their own judges, both as to the expediency of originating 
them, and as to the peculiar character of their constitution. This prin- 
ciple is of universal application to human institutions. 

By a divine institution, we understand one which has been founded 
by the Almighty himself. Here we readily perceive that, in the very 
uature of things, there is something radically different from all insti. 


Ch. i.] FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 861 


tions merely human. A divine institution, whether political or ecclesias- 
tical, or whatever be its character, originates in the will and appoint- 
ment of God. It is the appointment of God that causes it to be, and to 
be what it is. God, being the creator and supreme governor of the uni- 
verse, possesses the right to prescribe for all or any portion of his crea- 
tures whatever form or constitution of government he may please, 
whether political or ecclesiastical ; and whatever God has appointed, 
or prescribed, is of universal and absolute obligation, to the last jot 
and tittle, according to the true intent and meaning of the divine ap- 
pointment. It follows, moreover, that whatever God has appointed or 
established must remain in force, unchanged and unmodified, until the — 
same authority which gave it being and force shall disannul or modify 
it. No power of man may alter.or modify an ordinance of God. 
Again, as God possesses the right to establish among his creatures 
whatever institutions he may please, so also it is his prerogative to select 
the method or plan according to which such institutions shall be set up. 
He may choose to exercise his agency through the medium of angels 
or of men, or whatever being or agency else he may select, as a suitable 
instrumentality for the accomplishment of his own purposes; but those 
agents, whether angelic or human, can only proceed so far as they are 
clothed with the authority of God, and act in accordance with the 
divine commission with which they are invested. Should they transcend 
or deviate from their commission, all their acts in thus transcending or 
deviating, so far as the establishment of a divine institution is con- 
cerned, are null and void; but this would not vitiate, or tend in the 
least to weaken, the force of such acts as may be performed in accord 


- ance with their commission. 


Having now premised some of the radical and general principles 
pertaining to human and divine institutions, we proceed to consider their 
connection with and bearing upon the Christian Church. 

The Christian Church must be either a divine or hwnan institution. 
A divine institution, according to the principles laid down, derives its 
authority from the appointment of God—a human institution from the 
appointment of man. It should not, however, be overlooked, that an 
institution may be divine in some respects, and human in other respects; 
but the distinction is obvious. So far as it originates in the appoint- 
ment of God, or has been prescribed by his authority, it is divine; but 
so far as any thing pertaining to it las been left to the judgment and 
discretion of uninspired man, it is human. 

It may be said, with propriety, that the State and family are, w a 
certain extent, divine institutions; for the one originates in the ex- 


862 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. LP. ive Bae 


press appointment of God, and the other is of God; for it is written: 
“There is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of 
God.” Rom. xiii, 1. Therefore it is true, whether we speak of the 
institution of the Church, the State, or the family, the same principle 
applies in precisely the same way. Justo far only as they originate 
in the appointiaent or by the authority of God, to the same extent are 
they divine institutions. 

That the Christian Church is a divine institution, in a high and im- 
portant sense of the word, is admitted by all Christians. Every thing 
essential to its constitution is founded upon the appointment of God. 
We are not, however, to infer from this, that every thing should be ex- 
zerpted from the Church which God has not expressly appointed. ‘To 
say that God has prescribed nothing in reference to the institution and 
organization of the Church, is to deny that it is a divine institution at 
all; but to contend that nothing may be connected with its organiza- 
tion except what God has expressly appointed, is a position unwarranted 
by the word of God—nor is it maintained by any denomination of 
Christians. 

From the above, it will follow that, in the establishment and organ- 
ization of the Christian Church, some things are expressly laid down 
or prescribed in Scripture, but that all things which may properly be 
connected with that organization are not thus expressly prescribed. It 
also follows that, so far as the constitution and organization of the 
Church have been expressly laid down or prescribed in Scripture, it is 
the duty of Christians to conform thereto; but in reference to the less 
important matters, not prescribed in the Scriptures, they may be guided 
by the dictation of circumstances, or their judgment of expediency. 

In opening the Bible to learn the true character of that organization 
called the Christian Church, our first inquiry will be: Through what 
agency, or by what means, has God. established aiid organized’ this 
Church? Here we may observe that, since the Fall of man, God has 
only been approachable by the human family through a mediator; but 
the great Mediator was not fully revealed to man under the Mosaic dis- 
pensation, Although all the merciful manifestations of God to man 
since the Fall were virtually and really through the mediation of the 
Messiah, yet, until this Messiah was manifest in the flesh, there was insti- 
tuted a sub-mediation. God, ever since the Fall, could only look merei- 
fully upon man through the Messiah, but until the actual coming of 
the Messiah man could only look up to that Messiah, and thus have 
access to the mercy of God through signs and symbols, types and 
shadows, which properly constituted a sub-mediatorship, through which 


Ch. i.] FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 863 


man could apprehend that only true and real Mediator between God 
and man. 

All the typical array of the Mosaic law was adumbrative of the 
gospel. Moses, with his priests and altars, his victims and his offerings, 
foreshadowed Christ and his gospel, his atonement and his Church ; 
but the Mosaic institution, notwithstanding its typical and shadowy 
character, was nevertheless an appointment of God—it was divine ip 
its origin, and, for the time and purposes for which it was intended 
was 2s much an institution of God, and of as binding obligation, as the 
gospel itself now is. But we ask, How did God give his sancticn to 
that institution, and stamp it with the seal of his authority? We an- 
swer, It was through the ministry of Moses. To him he gave his law, 
inscribing its great moral heart upon the tables of stone with his own 
finger, and presenting in minute detail all the precepts and command- 
ments, the ceremonies and rites. Thus, having qualified and instructed 
him in all matters, great and small, pertaining to the politico-ecclesias- 
tical organization about to be set up, in all the minutia in reference to 
the government and worship of the people, the tabernacle to be reared, 
and the offerings to be presented, he sends him down from the mount 
of revelation, yet quaking with the touch of Divinity, commissioned 
with the solemn charge: “See that thou make all things according to 
the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.” 

Thus we perceive that, in the establishment of the divine institution 
of the Mosaic law, the chosen mediator of the Sinaic covenant was not 
only endued with miracle-working powers for the attestation of the 
divinity of his mission, but was charged with minute and specific instruc- 
tions in reference to all the parts and appurtenances of the extensive 
and complicated fabric for the erection of which he was the divinely- 
constituted agent. The point specially to be borne in mind in the 
Mosaic institution is, that Moses was not commanded to erect among 
the Israelites a civil and religious polity of some indefinite character, 
but that minute and specific instructions were given, pointing out in 
detail the principles to be incorporated, the ordinances and services to 
be observed, and the various classes and kinds of sacred persons and 
things, together with the special offices they were to perform, and the 
uses to which they were to be appropriated—from all which it is clear 
that the institution of the law was only divine so far as it was con- 
formed to the true intent of the divine prescription. Had Moses pro- 
ceeded to the erection of a tabernacle of service, and a political and 
Church-organization, framed according to his own conceptions of pro- 
priety, utility, or expediency, independent of his instructions, in the 


864 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 1. 


same proportion as he deviated from the “pattern shewed him in 
the mount,” would the institution cease to be divine, and rest all 
its claims to reverence and obedience on the basis of mere human 
authority? 

The remarks already made may pave the way for the better un- 
derstanding of the new institution commonly called the Christian 
Church. 

Upon this point, the first position we take is, that Christ Jesus, the Son 
of God, was the great agent and mediator, properly and plenarily invested 
with the highest authority which God could impart, for the establish- 
ment of the gospel dispensation and the erection and: organization of 
the Christian Church. In reference to this authoritative investment of 
the Messiah, we hear him exclaiming, by the mouth of the prophet, 
“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord hath 
anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek,” ete. And the 
delivery of the grand evangelical commission to the apostles is pre- 
faced with these remarkable words: “All power is given unto me in 
heaven and in earth.” Again he saith: “The words that I speak unto 
you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he 
doeth the works.” Hence we see that Jesus was properly invested 
with all the authority necessary for the establishment of a divine insti- 
tution. 

As Jesus Christ is thus invested with the supreme authority of 
Heaven, it necessarily follows that, in the erection and organization of 
the gospel Church, he may perform the whole work by his own imme- 
diate personal agency, or he may delegate to others, whom he may 
select and qualify, the whole or any part of that work. From the 
plenary powers with which he was invested, it follows, in the event of 
his conferring upon others the whole or any portion of his commission, 
that those thus commissioned, and acting according to that commis- 
sion under him, are invested with all the authority to act in the prem- 
ises which Christ himself possessed. And as Christ was endued with 
all the authority of the Godhead, and as those commissioned by him 
were invested with all his authority, so also they were clothed with all 
the authority of God himself; and any institution they might establish 
and organize, in the legitimate exercise of that high trust, would be as 
really divine in its character, and as strictly binding and authoritative, 
as if the work had all been performed by the direct personal agency 


of God. 


Uh. 1] FUUNDATION PRINCIPLES EXAMINED. 865 


eS) GE a eee 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER I. 


} Questien 1. What is the distinction be- | 5. In what sense are the Stute and the 
7 tween a human and a divine insti- family divine institutions ? 
y tution? 6. In what sense is the Church a divine 
; 2, Have a people the right to choose institution? 
their own form of government? 7. How has God been approachable by 
: 3. In a divine institution, to what ex- man since the Fall? 
; \ tent may the people shape their | 8. Was the Mosaic law a divine institu- 
é government as they choose? tion, and in what manner was it 
: 4. How may an institution be divine set up? 
in some respects, and human in| 9, Who was the Agent, and with what 
other respects? authority was he vested, in setting 


ey 
~ \ 


} | ; |. up the Christian Church? 
LF. Ch A Dig tA Pee Pte > A Q ) 


A — iin am 
ROC CAM tt OU. 


/ 
f- 


( 


466 FLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {P. sv. BY} 


CHAPTER II. 


THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE, 


I. Wr CONSIDER ITS NATURE. 
We see from the Scriptures that Christ, in ‘he establishment and 
organization of his Church, called to his assistance the services of 


others, whom he called apostles; and we proceed to inquire into the nat- 
ure of the apostolic office. 


When was the apostolic office instituted?..Some have supposed that 
when our Saviour appeared to his disciples after his resurrection, and 
delivered to them the command, “ Go ye into all the world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature,” then, and in that act, originated the apos- 
tolic office, in the exercise of which the apostles proceeded in the estab- 
‘lishment of the Christian Church. But this view of the subject we 
conceive to be erroneous. To suppose that the calling and commission 
of the apostles, which took place near the commencement of Christ’s 
public ministry, was only temporary, and ceased when Christ expired 
on the cross, and that the apostolic office commenced de novo, subse: 
quently to the Saviour’s resurrection, though a very generally received 
sentiment, yet, we think, a little examination will clearly evince that 
it must have been adopted in haste. 

In the first chapter of The Acts, we are presented with an account of 
the appointment of one to fill the place vacated by the apostasy and 
ileath of Judas. Peter on that occasion, speaking of Judas, said, 
plainly implying that the ministry pertaining to the apostles, subse- 
quent to the crucifixion of Christ, was not a newly constituted one, 
but a continuation of the same ministry into which they, together with 
Judas, had originally been inducted. In confirmation of the same 
doctrine, Peter proceeds to quote from the Psalms the following words: 
“ Let his habitation be desolate,.and let. no man dwell therein, and 
his bishopric let another.take.” After this we find the apostles praying 
in the following words: “Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all 
men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take 


———ea— Ss 


Ch. 11.) TIIE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. 867 


part of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression 
fell.” 

Now, to suppose that the apostolic ministry, in its history subsequent 
to the resurrection, was not a continuation of the same that had existed 
previous to the crucifixion, but that it is founded upon and originated 
with the grand commission given after our Saviour’s resurrection, 
seems obviously contrary to the plain import of the passages just ad- 
duced. We arrive, therefore, at the conclusion, that the apostolic office, 
in the exercise of which the apostles acted, when organizing the Chris- 
tian Church, dates its origin anterior to the Sayiour’s crucifixion, In 
the tenth chapter of St. Matthew we find Jesus calling his twelve apos- 
tles, and “sending them forth,” saying to them: “As ye go, preach, 
saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the 
lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils.” And in the same discourse the 
Saviour adds: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that re- 
ceiveth me receiveth him that sent me,” 

Here we find the foundation of the apostolic commission, and in ref- 
erence to it we may notice that two things are clearly apparent: 1, It 
implied a commission to “preach,” and to confirm the same by the per- 
formance of miracles. 2. It implied a commission to.act_in..the name — 
and under the instructions of Jesus, with the same divine authority 
which he had received from the Father. This is evident from the 
remarkable declaration, “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he 
that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” As much as if the Sav- 
jour had said, “I delegate to you the same authority which my Father 
hath delegated to me.” 

We find the establis t_of the 
Mark, in the third chapter of his Gospe 


postolic office recorded by St. 
, in the following words: “And 


he ordained.twelve, that. they should be with him, and that he might 


send them forth to preach, and to have power to heal sicknesses, and to 
cast out devils.” Here we perceive substantially the same account 
which is given by St. Matthew, with the more explicit announcement of 
the ordination of the apostles. 

On the subject now before us we may farther remark that, although 
we must date the original institution of the apostolic office from the 
first appointment and ordination of the apostles, and their commission 
to preach and work miracles, yet it must be confessed that while the 
commission they received was plenary, clothing them with divine au- 
thority to enter upon the great work for which they had been conse- 
crated, it was circumscribed as to the field of its operation. Jesus said 
unto them. “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of 


868 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel.” From this we infer that although the apostles were 
now fully invested with the authority and prerogatives of the apostolic 
office, yet this does not imply that the field of their labors might not 
subsequently be enlarged, and they be more fully and explicitly in- 
structed as to the nature of their duties. 

In the establishment of his kingdom our Saviour advanced step by 
step, unfolding to his apostles the great mysteries of his gospel and the 
ground-plot of the new institution, as they were able to understand 
and prepared to receive them. Hence it appears that even up to the 
hour of our Saviour’s crucifixion his apostles were greatly ignorant 
with regard to the laws and institutions of that kingdom, for the es- 
tablishment of which they had been chosen and ordained as prime 
ministers, 

Subsequent to our Saviour’s resurrection farther light was shed upon 
this subject. We read (Matt. xxviii. 18-20): “Jesus came and spake 
unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in 
earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching 
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, 
I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” It is recorded 
(Mark xvi. 15): “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature,” etc. In John xx. 21-23, we 
read: “Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you; as my 
Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this 
he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 
whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whoseso- 
ever sins ye retain, they are retained.” 

From the scriptures above quoted, it appears that after our Saviour’s 
resurrection from the dead he enlarged the boundaries, and more fully 
explained the character of tiie apostolic mission. Hitherto the apostles 
had been restricted in their labors to the Jews, but now the “ middle 
wall of partition,” which had separated the Gentile from the Jew, is 
demolished, and “all the world” is the divinely-assigned field of apos- 
tolic evangelism and jurisdiction. The plenary powers of the apostles 
are here distinctly and emphatically stated. The words of the Saviour 
are: “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” The Father 
had sent the Son, clothed with “all power in heaven and in earth,” 
“even so” doth the Son “send” the apostles. So that as the Son was 
invested with all the authority of the Father, in like manner were the 
apostles invested with all the authority of the Son; hence it is clear 


SS eee 


Ch. ii.] THR APOSTOLIC OFFICE. 869 


that al: the acts and doings of the apostles, under the commission in 
question, are of divine authority. 

It is not, however, to be inferred from this that the apostles were in- 
vested with the authority of Christ to perform any part of the peculiar 
mission he received of the Father; but that they were as truly sent as 
truly authorized to perform the work assigned them, in establishing and 
organizing the gospel-Church, as the Son had been sent and authorized 
by the Father to perform the work for which he came into the world. 

II. Another important and obvious inference from the apostolic com- 
mission, 4s here enlarged and explained, is its 3 perpetuity. This the 
general tenor of the gospel would strongly indicate. It. is plain that 
the Christian religion is designed for universal dissemination. It is in- 
tended for all people in all ages; hence it would appear that it should 
be sent to all as an authoritative message from God. But the express 
language of the commission, in its enlarged and more explicit. form, as 
already quoted, sets the point in hand in a light not easy to be misun- 
derstood: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to es 
creature.” And again: “Go ye therefore, and teach. all nation. 
we ask, if the apostolic office terminated fives of the then 
existing apostles, how was it possible for them to fill the mission with 
which they were intrusted? Could the twelve, in their own. persons, 
“ 90 into all the wells 2 Could they “preach the gospel to every creat: 
ure”? wid they“ teach all nations,” of every age, and of every 


clime? It is most evident that they could not. But again, the 


Saviour adds: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the * Adiabell 
5 Now, we demand, can this apply exclusively to the ordaine 


twelve Are they to be continued as the personal agents in carrying 
out this commission “to the end of the world”? No one can so under- 
stand the passage. And we may confidently ask, How, therefore, can 
the passage be consistently interpreted, unless we infer that the apostolic 
office is to be perpetuated, and this commission to be carried out by the 
apostles’ successors ? 

Notwithstanding the plain, and to our mind unavoidable, inference 
from the words of Christ, that the apostolic office is perpetual, yet many 
are slow to admit the truth of the inference. We are met by the ob- 
jection, that the apostles were endued with plenary inspiration to write 
the New Testament Scriptures, and with miracle-working power. And 
i, is argued that as it is not contended that the supposed successors of 
the apostles have been endued with these powers, therefore the apostles 
can have no successors. We will calmly consider this objection, as it 
is the main, if not the sole, reliance of those who restrict the apostolic 


870 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


office to the New Testament twelve. Our first remark is, that the ob 
jection in question is based upon and derives all its force from what 
we conceive to be a false assumption. It assumes that the apostolic 
office, in order to be perpetual, must be unchangeable—that is, that a 
material change in the power and prerogatives of an office cannot take 
place without the destruction of that office. But why, we ask, must such 
a result ensue? Does perpetwity in itself necessarily imply unchange 
ableness? Surely it does not. The existence of man is to be perpetu- 
ated forever, but who can tell “through what new scenes and changes 
we must pass”? Even so, may not the apostolic office still be perpet- 
uated, in all that is essential to its existence, while it may undergo 
changes in its features ? 

But we are not left to mere reasoning on this subject. We have the 
plain Bible-statement of facts, As we have already seen, the mission 
of the apostles, after the resurrection of Christ, was greatly changed 
from what it had been before. It was enlarged in its sphere, modified 
in its character, and more explicitly unfolded in its functions, yet all 
that was essential to its identity was preserved. Tt was still the same 
ministry and apostleship. If, then, so great a change as was realized in 
the functions and prerogatives of the apostles, in passing from the per 
riod of their original call and ordination up to the full exercise of their 
high prerogatives, in the establishment and organization of the gospel- 
Church, subsequent to the resurrection of Christ, did not destroy the 
identity of the office, why should it be argued that the same office can- 
not be perpetuated, unless precisely the same prerogatives and powers 
be continued with it? 

We do not contend that that part, or, more properly, that appendage 
of the apostolate, which implied plenary inspiration and miraculous 
endowments, was to be transmitted to their successors. This is not the 
matter in dispute. The only question here before us, is whether those 
extraordinary powers were a necessary part of the office essential to its 
very existence? We see no evidence that they were. Miraculous 
powers were no doubt possessed by numbers having no claims to be 
apostles. And moreover, it is clear that, so far as plenary inspiration 
is concerned, this was not possessed by the apostles till they were “en- 
dued with power from on high” on the day of Pentecost. It was not 
till then that the Spirit “led them into all truth,” bringing to their 
minds the past instructions of Christ, and enabling them to pen those 
divine truths which constitute the New Testament code. And yet it is 
equally clear that they did not just begin to be apostles when they re- 
ceived these extraordinary endowments. They had been consecrated 


Ch. ii.) THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. 871 


to the same “ministry and apostleship,” even while Judas was one 
of their number. Previous to the crucifixion of Christ, it was not 
thought necessary by our Lord to confer upon the apostles powers so 
extensive. And the reason is obvious. Such powers were not then 
requisite. Upon the same principle, we may infer that, when those ex- 
traordinary-powers ceased to be needed, they would of course be with- 
held. But_as_the conferring. of them did not. penpumenieien eens 
neither can the withholding of them-destroy- its 
Tt will be r readily peroetved how “utterly inconsistent with the forego- 
ing scriptural view of the perpetuity of the apostolic office must be 
that theory upon which have been founded the arrogant assumptions 
of a haughty episcopacy as well as all the enormous and blasphemous 
pretensions of the papacy. According to the Scriptures, the apostolic 
office is perpetuated; but in what? Not in the assumed Primacy, in 
the pretended chair of St. Peter, claiming to sway a scepter of abso- 
lute control, as “the Lord God the Pope,” over the whole Church— 
not in the arrogant claims and usurped prerogatives of an unwar- 
ranted episcopacy —but in the living ministry, “called of God,” and 
“sent forth” by the Head of the Church “into all the world” to 
“preach the gospel to every creature.” In the Scripture sense, they are 
the successors of the apostles, who, like St. Peter, hear the voice of 
their Master by his Spirit addressing them, saying, “Feed my lambs. 
. Feed my sheep;” or who can say with St. Paul, “ Woe is me, if 1 
preach not the gospel.” The divinely called and commissioned minis- 
ters of Christ, in every age, are the apostles of the Lord, not claiming 
the miraculous powers and extraordinary prerogatives of the sacred 
“twelve,” but succeeding them as “embassadors for Christ,” proclaim- 
ing his gospel, administering his ordinances and discipline and feeding 


the “ Church of God.” 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [ Poiv see 


872 
QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER II. 
VA bail 1. Whom did Christ call to} 8. 


Wherein was it afterward changed? 


his assistance in establishing his 
Church? 

. What erroneous view has been ex- 
tensively held as to the origin of 
the apostolic office? 

. How can it be shown that the apos- 
tolic office originated in the first 
calling and ordination of the twelve? 
. What scriptures are quoted to prove 
that Judas was an apostle? 

. What two elements did the apostolic 
office originally embrace ? 

. Wherein does the record of Mark, on 
the subject, vary from that of Mat- 
thew? 

. Was the original commission of the 
apostles }lene~y ° 


9. 


10. 


Li. 


12. 
13. 


14. 
15. 


What farther light was shed upon 
the subject after Christ’s resurrec- 
tion? 

In what sense were the apostles 
sent as the Father had sent the 
Son? 

Was the apostolic office to be perpet- 
wal? 

How is this proved? 

What objection is urged against this 
doctrine? 

How is the objection answered ? 

Is the view given of the perpetuity 
of the apostolic office consistent 
with the assumptions of High 
Church Episcopalians and Roman 
Catholics? 


ee 


Se eS eee 


Ch. iii.) FOKM OF CUURCH-GOVERNMENT. 873 


CHAPTER III. 
FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. 


I. BrroreE we proceed to inquire particularly concerning the consti 
tution of the Church, as established under the apostolic administration, 
we will consider the light in which the acts and doings of the apostles in 
the premises should be viewed by the Church in all succeeding ages, and 
the extent to which they should be considered of binding authority. 

From the supreme authority with which the apostles were invested, 
and the divine inspiration with which they were endued, it does not 
necessarily follow that they acted under the sanction of this authority, 
and under the guidance of this inspiration, in all the minute history of 
their lives. In Galatians ii. 11-18, St. Paul speaks as follows: “ But 
when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because 
he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he 
did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and 
separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And 
the other Jews dissembled likewise with him.’ Here we find Peter, 
one of the inspired and divinely-commissioned apostles, acting with dis- 
simulation, and receiving the righteous reprimand of St. Paul. No one 
can suppose that Peter, in this case, was acting under the authority of 
that divine commission he had received of the Lord Jesus, or that he 
had a right to claim, while acting in contravention of the spirit of the 
mission, the fulfillment of the promise—* Lo, I am with you alway.” 

In 1 Cor. vii. 6, St. Paul says: “ But I speak this by permission, and 
not of commandment.” On this verse Dr. Clarke remarks: “We may 
understand the apostle here as saying that the directions already given 
were from his own judgment, and not from any divine inspiration ; and 
we may take it for granted that when he doves not make this observa- 
tion he is writing under the immediate afflatus of the Holy Spirit.” 
Seeing, then, from these scriptures, that the apostles themselves were 
liable, in some cases, to err, and did not profess to speak at all times 
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it is matter of special import- 
ance to us to be able certainly to distinguish their errors from their 
authoritative acts, and their personal advice from their divinely-inspired 


874 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P wv. BIJ 


mstructions. ‘To admit that there are no means by wl ich we may gaip 
a knowledge of this distinction, would be to shroud the New Testament 
in obscurity, and greatly weaken its authority; but we are not left, in 
this matter, to be tossed upon the waves of uncertainty. 

We inquire therefore, How may we arrive at the knowledge in ques- 
tion? As the apostles were specially commissioned to establish and 
organize the Christian Church, and endued with miraculous powers and 
plenary inspiration, for the accomplishment of this great work, we view 
it as a matter of clear and necessary inference that in all their official 
acts and instructions they were so guided by the Spirit of unerring 
truth that all they did and said, belonging or in anywise appertaining 
to the great work for which they had been set apart, was of divine au- 
thority and perpetual obligation. And as the Scriptures of the New 
Testament are presented under the divine sanction as the infallible ree- 
ord of the gospel system, containing the history of its Divine Author, 
of his death, resurrection, ascension, and glorification, together with the 
setting up, under apostolic administration, of the Church, and all doe- 
trines and regulations necessary for its permanence and prosperity, we 
infer that whatsoever may be recorded erroneous in the conduct, or of 
mere human advice in the teachings, of the apostles, are only the excep- 
tions to the general rule; and as such, the New Testament itself, by the 
manner in which such facts are recorded or such instructions are deliy- 
ered, will clearly show that they are exceptions. We therefore conclude 
that the example, the institutions, the regulations, and the instructions 
of the apostles, are of divine authority, and of permanent obligation, 
eacept when the Scriptures themselves plainly indicate to the contrary. 

II. We now inquire concerning the FORM OF GOVERNMENT AND 
potiry according to which the New Testament Church has been 
organized. 

In entering upon this subject, the first question to be considered is 
this. Has any particular form. of Church-government been laid down 
in the New Testament? 

In modern times, a numerous portion of the followers of Christ have 
adopted the negative side of the question now before us. Assuming 
that Christ and his apostles laid down for the Church which they 
reared “no particular form of government,” many have proceeded to 
erect and organize ecclesiastical fabrics, according to their own concep- 
tions of propriety or expediency, until Christendom has become severed 
into an almost endless number of dissimilar institutions, resembling 
each other as little as the diversified systems of political rule through- 
out the known world. The causes which have tended to give currency 


———— -— 


Ub iii.J FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. 875 


to this sentiment, and its pernicious influence upon Christianity itself, we 
will not now consider. It is our present business to examine its claims 
to truth. Is it true that Christ and his apostles have established no 
particular form of Church-government? 

The position that no particular form of government has been estab- 
lished for the New Testament Church, upon the admission that such a 
Church has been established, seems to us to imply an absurdity. How 
ean we conceive of a Church without a government? or of a govern- 
ment without a form? The very idea seems too ethereal for compre- 
hension. As well might we speak of a house without a form. or of a 
world without a form, as of a government without a form. Form is 
something which necessarily inheres in all created substances, whether 
material or immaterial, whether simple or complex. It is essential to 
their very existence. Who can conceive of a political government 
without a form? It may be irregular in its arrangements, incongruous 
in its parts, or rough-hewn in its aspects, but if it be a government dé 
must have a form. It may come under none of the heads, according to 
the definitions commonly given, of the different forms of government; 
but, without a form of some kind, it would not be a government at all, 

Some who aver that “no particular form of Church-government is 
laid down in the New Testament,” say they do not mean that there is 
“no form of Church-government therein laid down,” but “no particular 
form,” etc. If this be the position, then we demand: What is meant 
by “a particular form”? Is not one form as much “a particular form” 
as another? If not, what form is that which comes under the defini- 
tion of particular ? 

Perhaps the meaning of some who use the phrase is, that “no one 
form of government is established more than, or in preference to, an- 
other.” If the shift be made to this position, then we reply that one 
or the other of two things must be true. If “no one form of govern- 
ment be established more than, or in preference to, another,” then it will 
follow either that no form at all is established or that various forms are 
established. For if one form is established, and others are not, it is 
clear that one is more established than others. But if the position be 
taken in real sincerity, that Christ and his apostles established various 
forms of government for the gospel Church, then we demand: What 
were those various forms of government? In what did their essential 
difference consist? If there was an essential difference between them, 
was not one preferable to the others? If one was preferable to the 
others, why was not that one universally established? Was there an 
essential difference in human nature, or in the nature of true Christi- 


876 RLEMENTS SOF DIVINITY. ([P. iv. B. 


anity, in different places, that rendered these various systems of Church: 
government necessary? Did the same apostle establish different sys- 
tems of Church-government? or did Paul establish one system, Peter 
another, and James another? Was one an Episcopalian, another a 
Presbyterian, and another a Congregationalist ? 

But, seeing the absurdity of all these positions, we are inclined to be- 
lieve that the real meaning of those who contend that “Christ and his 
apostles established no particular form of Church-government,” is that 
they established no Church-government whatever. Assuming, then, that 
this is the true meaning of the position against which we are now eon- 
tending, we may dismiss from the controversy the words “particular” 
and “form” as mere expletives, and then the question will be narrowed 
down to one single point: Did Christ and his apostles establish any 
Church-government ? 

To comprehend this subject thoroughly, it will be necessary for us to 
inquire: What is the Christian Church? The word Church is, in the 
Greek, éxxAnoia, which means a congregation assembled Jor purposes of 
business, whatever be the character of the business, A Church may 
properly be said to be established whenever a society or congregation is 
organized—that is, when arrangement is made for the regular meeting 
of the congregation and the transaction of business therein, according 
to established order or rule. But, in a religious sense, by a Church is 
generally understood “a congregation of faithful men, in which the 
true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, 
according to Christ’s ordinances, in those things that of necessity are 
requisite to the same.” 

From the foregoing, it appears that, according to the generally re- 
ceived sentiment, a Church is a regularly-organized religious associa- 
tion, or society. Now, to our mind, it is difficult to conceive of such a 
society without a government. If the society be organized, it must be 
organized according to some constitution or rule; and that constitution 
or rule would form the basis of government. To suppose that Christ 
and his apostles established the Christian Church, and yet that they 
prescribed no rule, no order, no fixed principle, for the transaction of 
business, no government for the regulation of the ecclesiastical body 
whicl. they created, is a position which, judging a priori, we must con- 
sider exceedingly improbable. In view of the nature and fitness of 
things, and judging from the general analogy of the works and admin- 
istration of God, prima facie evidence is manifestly against it; and we 
should be slow to subscribe to the sentiment in the absence of clear and 
decided proof of its correctness. 


— oo, 


/ 


h. iii.) FORM OF CIHURCH-GOVERNMENT. 877 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IIT. 


Question 1. To what extent were the 
apostles under the influence of di- 
vine inspiration ? 

. What proof is given in support of 
this position ? 

3. By what rule may we decide when 
tuey were and when they were not 
inspired ? 

4. What is the first question proposed 
as to the form of Church-govern- 
ment? 

5 How is the question answered ? 

6 What evil results have followed from 
an erroneous position on this ques-. 
tion ? 


bo 


7. How is the position that the Serpt- 
ures establish “no particular form 
of Church-government” shown to 
be absurd ? 

8. How have the abettors of this erro- 
neous view shifted their ground, 
and how is it shown that in all its 
phases their position is alike un- 
tenable? 

9. How is the Christian Church de- 
fined ? 

10 Is the position that “no form of 
Church-government has been es 
tablished” reconcilable with the 
definition given of the Church? 


878 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, (Po iv. Bot 


CHAPTER IV. 


eORM OF CH SRCH-GOVERNMENT:-—SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY—THE OL? 
TESTAMENT. 


Dip Christ and his apostles establish any particular form of Church- 
government? We proceed to examine the Scripture testimony in ref: 
erence to this question, 

1. Our first argument from Scripture is founded upon the general 
analogy between the law and the gospel. 

The law and the gospel are the two great and important divine insti- 
{utions constituting the leading subject-matter of revelation. The one is 
the prominent theme of the Old Testament and the other the engross 
ing topic of the New. The law was properly introductory to and typ- 
ical of the gospel; and so intimate and important was the connection 
hetween them, that the law derived all its excellence, its life, vigor, and 
efficacy, from that gospel which it foreshadowed, and by the introduc- 
tion of which it was to be superseded, while the gospel is a comment 
upon the mysteries of the law—the substance of which the law was the 
shadow, and the “bringing in of a better covenant,” as an abiding sub- 
stitute for that which was “ready to vanish away.” 

Tn connection with these evidences of the intimate relation subsisting 
between the law and the gospel, and the constant reference had by the 
former to the latter, when we remember the emphatic and minute sense 
in which the numerous parts of the complicated Mosaic system were 
prescribed and enjoined by the direct authority of God, it will appear 
unreasonable to suppose that the government of the Christian Church 
should be left in a state of vagueness and uncertainty. In the law of 
Moses, the introductory and inferior dispensation, the utmost pains are 
taken that all things may be explicit; but are we to suppose that in 
the gospel of Christ, the superior dispensation, “ shadows, clouds, and 
darkness,” are to rest upon the institution? In an institution of types 
and symbols, we find clear and specific arrangements; but in an in- 
stitution of substance and reality, are we to look for obscurity and un- 
certainty? In a transient system, we find the organization and gow 


Ch. iv. | FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. 879 


ernment, in their numerous features and minute details, specifically 
prescribed and rigidly enjoined; but, in a permanent system, are we 
to be told that no definite organization or form of government is laid 
down? 

In the Mosaic economy, specific instructions are given for the adjust- 
ment of all the parts of the system—the furniture of the temple, its 
altars and its offe~ings, its priests and its services, the worshipers and 
their duties, the fasts and the feasts, the ordinances and the command- 
ments, all, add these are deemed sufficiently important to receive the di- 
vine regard—but are the organization and government of the Chris- 
tian Church to be passed over as mere circumstances, as matters of in- 
difference, or of so trivial importance that all men are to be left to the 
entire guidance of their own peculiar notions of fitness, propriety, or ex- 
pediency? ‘To our mind, the analogical argument based upon the pecu- 
liar character of the Mosaic institution, and its connection with the 
gospel, furnishes strong, presumptive evidence against the hypothesis, 
that “no particular form of Church-government is laid down in the 
New Testament.” 

2. Our next argument upon this question is based upon the essential 
identity of the Church under both the Jewish and Christian dispensations. 

Upon this point, we adopt the remarks of Mr. Watson in his Bib- 
lical and Theological Dictionary—Art. “CHuRCH”: 

“The Christian Church is not another Church, but the very same 
that was before the coming of Christ, having the same faith with it, 
and interested in the same covenant. Great alterations, indeed, were 
made in the outward state and condition of the Church by the coming 
of the Messiah. The carnal privileges of the Jews, in their separation 
from other nations to give birth to the Messiah, then failed, and with 
that also their claim on that account to be the children of Abraham 
The ordinances of worship suited to that state of things then expired, 
and came to an end. New ordinances of worship were appointed, suit- 
able to the new light and grace which were then bestowed upon the 
Church. The Gentiles came into the faith of Abraham along with the 
Jews, being made joint-partakers with them in his blessing. But none 
of these things, nor the whole collectively, did make such an alteration 
in the Church, but that it was still one and the same. The olive-tree 
was still the same, only some branches were broken off, and others 
grafted into it.” 

When we see, therefore, that the Church of God is the same Church 
under the gospel that it was under the law, is it reasonable to suppose 
that under the law there should be a specific organization and ecclesi- 


880 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B a 


astical polity, divinely prescribed, but that under the gospel there is no 
divine prescription on the subject? Under the law, the Church of 
God was a divine institution—a society or community of persons organ- 
ized and placed under an ecclesiastical regimen or government by the 
authority of God. Now, if under the gospel there be no society or as- 
sociation of persons organized, and placed under a system of ecclesias- 
tical regimen or government, by the appointment and authority of 
God, we demand, how can two societies, or associations, be essentially 
the same, when so radically variant, in all that is necessary to consti- 
tute a society ? 

If there be no Church-government laid down in the New Testament, 
as of divine authority, then it follows that the New Testament Church 
is under no government whatever, or under a government of human 
origin and authority. But, as we have seen, the Old Testament Church 
was under a government of divine origin and authority. Now, if it be 
said that the New Testament Church is under no government at all, 
then, we ask, how can a society or Church, under an organization and 
government of divine authority, be essentially the same with a society 
or Church destitute of any organization or government whatever? Or- 
ganization and government seem to us to be essential to the very exist- 
ence of a society or Church. How, then, we repeat, can a society or 
Church, under an organization and government of divine origin, be 
essentially the same with something which is destitute of what is essen- 
tial to the very existence of a society or Church? But if it be said 
that the New Testament Church is under an organization and govern- 
ment of human origin and authority, then, we ask, how such a society 
‘an be essentially the same with one divinely constituted ? 

3. Our third argument on this subject is founded upon the fact that 
Christ and the gospel Church are, in Scripture, designated by terms 
and appellations, necessarily implying a specific and definite organiza- 
tion and government. 

In the Old Testament, the language of prophecy speaks of the com- 
ing Messiah and of gospel times in terms which can scarcely be intel- 
ligibly interpreted, but upon the supposition that Christ has instituted 
a Church with a specific organization and government. 

The Messiah is repeatedly spoken of by the prophets as a King, and 
his Church as a kingdom. “Yet have I set my King upon my holy 
hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, 
Thou art my Son; this day have T begotten thee. Ask of me, and I 
shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost 
parts of the earth for thy possession.” Ps. ii, 6-8. Here the Messiah is 


Ch. 1v.] FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT. 831 


denominated a King. He is represented as publishing his laws—“1 will 
declare the decree” —and as extending his dominion over the Gentiles 
— “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inherit- 
ance,” etc. 

In Isa. ix. 6, 7, he is styled the “ Prince of Peace ;” and it is added: 
“Of the increase of his government and peace, there shall be no end.” 
Isa. xxxil, 1: “ Behold a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes 
shall rule in judgment.” Dan. ii. 44: “And in the days of these kings 
shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom,” ete. 

But in what sense, we ask, are we to understand these rreiiotione? 
Surely no Christian will construe them, like the blinded Jew, as refer- 
ring to an earthly monarch. While we do not construe the kingdom 
of Messiah as referring to an earthly monarchy, on the other hand we 
should not restrict it to the internal dominion over the heart, and thus 
fall into the error of the Mystic or the Quaker. Christ said, “My 
kingdom is not of this world;” but, at the same time, he came to estab- 
lish a new institution of a peculiarly excellent order. He said to 
Peter: “On this rock will I build my Church ;” hence it is evident 
that the kingdom of Messiah, foretold by prophets, was not only to 
consist of righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost—of in- 
ternal principles of holiness—but it was to consist of an outward, visible 
Church. Assuming, then, that the kingdom of Christ referred to by 
the prophets embraced the visible gospel Church, we now ask, how can 
we reconcile the language of prophecy with the supposition that there 
is no Church-government and polity established by Christ and his apos- 
tles? What is a kingdom without laws, and a regular administration 
of those laws? 

In allusion to the Jewish kingdom, Isaiah speaks of the Messiah as 
sitting “on the throne of David to order it, and to establish it with 
judgment and justice.” Does this language favor the idea that he was 
to leave his Church without a government of his own ordination? 
Daniel, after having described the various leading earthly monarchies, 
declares: “In the days of these kings, shall the “God of heaven set up 
a kingdom,” etc. Here we ask, Hoe can a kingdom be “set up” by 
“the God cf heaven,” unless the organization and government be of di- 
vine origin and authority? Whoever will carefully attend to the man- 
ner in which the prophets of the Old Testament habitually spoke of 
the Messiah and his reign, will not be likely to conclude that the prima 
facie evidence, from that source, favors the notion that there is no gov: 
ernment prescribed for the New Testament Church 

dC 


882 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iv. BL 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IV. 


Question 1. On what is the first Scripture that ‘no form of government is 

argument on this subject founded? established for the New Testament 
2. How is the relation between the law Church,” is irreconcilable with the 

and the gospel shown? identity of the Church under the 
3. In what respects are the two dispen- two dispensations? 

sations contrasted ? 8. Upon what is the third argument on 
4. In what particulars were the instruc- this subject founded ? 

tions as to the Mosaic economy spe-| 9, What are some of the terms of the 

cific? Old Testament designating the 
5. Upon what is the next argument Ci.urch under Messiah ? 

based ? 10. Can these scriptures be reconciled 
6. What is ‘+e substance of the position with the position that there is no 

here taken by Watson? visible organized Church set up by 


7. How i# it shown that the position, Christ and his apostles? 


Jh. v.) FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT =< ~ 883 


CHAPTER V 


FORM OF CHURCH-GOVERNMENT—SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY—THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


BEFORE we proceed to examine the New Testament on this subject, 
it is important for us to understand the precise point of inquiry now 
before us; therefore we will consider, first, what is implied in “a par- 
ticular form of government ””—what is necessary to constitute it. We 
think it probable that much of the difficulty on this subject has re- 
sulted from a misapprehension at this point. Many have hastily 
imbibed the notion that unless a minute detail be exhibited of all 
things, great and small, which properly should be connected with a 
constitutional government, no form of government whatever can be 
established. With this preconceived and erroneous basis fixed in their 
minds, they have opened the New Testament, and, failing to find that 
minute detail of parts and particulars which they had conceived essen- 
tial to a “form of government,” they have assumed that none whatever 
has been established ; and that, consequently, all are left perfectly free 
to the guidance of their own views of propriety or expediency. 

In reference to this subject, persons have erred in two opposite ex- 
tremes. Some have supposed that every thing, great and small, proper 
to be connected with Church organization and government, is expressly 
laid down in Scripture; and that, consequently, no regulation, howevei 
minute, should be sanctioned in the Church, unless we can find it ex- 
pressly taught in the New Testament. Others have concluded that on 
the subject of Church-government no system, form, outline, or constitu- 
tional basis, has been prescribed; and that therefore no one form is of 
greater obligation than another. Now, the true position will be found 
between these two extremes. 

If it be found, upon the examination of the New Testament, that the 
organization and government of the Christian Church have not been 
exhibited in minute detail, then it will follow that, in regard to that 
minute detail, all Christians are left to the guidance of their own judg- 
ment of propriety or expediency. On the other hand, if it be found 


884 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv.B 3 


that the organization and government of the Christian Church have 
been exhibited, so far as some great leading principles ure concerred, 
either by the official acts of the apostles, in establishing or seusng the 
Church in order, or by their instructions authoritatively delivered, then 
it will follow that, in regard to those great leading principles, all Chris. 
tians are under sacred obligations, as far as practicable, to conform to 
those divinely instituted regulations. 

Contemplating the fact that the Christian Church ir &n institution 
designed to be extended throughout “all the world,” and to be perpet- 
uated to the latest period of its history, and at the same time reflecting 
on the almost endlessly diversified circumstances of mankind through- 
out this widely-extended and long-continued range, it could scarcely be 
inferred, judging a priori, that the government of the Church, in mi- 
nute detail, should be divinely prescribed, and tls rendered authorita- 
tively binding throughout all ages, and amon,st all nations, On the 
other hand, in view of the important facts that the Christian religion 
is, and of necessity must be, essentially the ssme in all climes and in 
all ages, that human nature is also essentia/ly the same in all places 
where the gospel is to be proclaimed, that the Christian Church is an 
institution claiming to be divine in its origin, and designed to be per- 
petuated to the end of the world; in view of all these facts, it would 
seem unreasonable, judging a priori, to suppose that no great leading 
principles, pertaining to the organization and government of this 
Church, should be divinely prescribed. And if it can be shown that 
although the minute detail is omitted, yet some great leading principles 
of Church-government are set forth in the New Testament, then these 
leading principles will constitute a “form of Church-government;” nor 
can they be any the less such, because the minute detail is omitted. 

Some constitutions are exceedingly brief, containing only the great 
principles on which the government is based, while others are more ex- 
tensive, going farther into detail. Would any one conclude, merely 
because a constitution is brief, that the principles it embraces are there 
fore of less authority, or that the constitution is any the less a constitu- 
tion, or a government, or a “form of government,” on that account? 
Surely not; hence we conclude that if it can be shown that Christ and 
his apostles prescribed certain leading principles pertaining to the or- 
ganization and government of the Christian Church, then they did, to 
the same extent, establish a “form of Church-government.” And so 
far as they did thus establish it, it is divinely authoritative; and all] 
Christians, in all places and in all ages, are in duty bound to couform 
to “the patteru thus shown them in the mount.” 


Ub v.] FORM OF CHURCH-GUVERNMENY. 885 


The principles essential to the organization and government of the 
Christian Church, and the Articles of Faith essential to salvation, are 
few in number, and simple and comprehensive in character. From 
the incipiency of the papal apostasy to the present day, a disposition to 
multiply and extend Church-rules and Articles of Faith beyond their 
legitimate and authorized limits has been the bane of the Church. In 
numerous instances the “law of God” has been made void by “the 
commandments of men,” or supplanted by the “traditions of the 
elders.” . 

On the other hand, oppressed by the tyrannical usurpations of such 
as would be “lords over God’s heritage,” some have rushed to an oppo- 
site extreme. In some instances they have gone so fur as to discard all 
organization, or agreed plan of government; thus giving loose rein 
to the wildest anarchy or the most reckless latitudinarianism. The 
proper scriptural medium lies between these two extremes. There are 
some great leading principles clearly laid down in the New Testament 
as necessary to the proper organization of the Christian Church, and 
some great radical doctrines essential to salvation. ‘These, whatever 
they may be found to be, must be recognized, or the Church cannot be 
erected on the scriptural basis. For illustration, as all must admit, the 
New Testament teaches: 

1. That all organized Churches, under the apostolic administration, 
had public meetings for worship at appointed times and places. 

2. That Church officers were appointed to superintend the public 
worship and other interests of the Church. 

3. That baptism and the Lord’s-supper were administered to all—the 
former, on their first profession of the Christian faith; the latter, fre 
quently at the regular meetings of the Church. 

Various other items might be enumerated, but these are enough to 
show that there are some important matters pertaining to the organiza 
tion and government of the Church clearly laid down in the New 
Testament. 


886 ELEMENTS OF 


DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 1. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER V. 


Question 1. What difficulty has resulted 
from not understanding what is im- 
plied in “a particular form of gov- 
ernment"? 

2. How have persons erred on this sub- 
ject in two opposite extremes? 

3. In what two different senses may we 
suppose that the government of the 
Christian Church might have been 
exhibited by Christ and his apos- 
tles ? 

4. Why is it improbable that the Chris- 
tian Church should have been ex- 
hibited in minute detail ? 

5. Why is it unreasonable that no great 
leading principles should be given? 

3. How do various constitutions differ 
from each other? 


cf 


What will follow from the fact that 
no minute detail has been divinely 
prescribed ? 


. What will follow from the fact that 


great leading principles have heen 
laid down? 


. What is said of the essential princi- 


ples relating to Church-govern- 
ment and of the Articles of Faith ? 


. What has been a prevalent error in 


reference to them? 


. To what opposite extreme have 


others gone? 


. What three specifications are given 


showing that some leading princi- 
ples of government are preacribe {? 


Ub. vi.) THE HIGHEST GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, 887 


CHAPTER VI. 


THE HIGHEST GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY — ORIGINALLY VESTED IN 
- THE APOSTLES. 


Tue New Testament sets forth the principles and laws according to 
which the Christian Church should be organized and governed, and 
designates proper officers for the administration of its government, and 
specifies their prerogatives and qualifications. 

In all governments, whether civil or ecclesiastical, the supreme or 
highest power is vested somewhere; and the first thing to be considered 
in the investigation of the genius and character of a government is, the 
depository and source of this power and authority. 

That the highest authority must be deposited in some definite source, 
is just as essential in the Church as in the State. The various denomi- 
nations of Christians, in the respective systems they have established, 
have vested the highest power in different sources. Few seem to have 
taken much pains to inquire at the proper oracle for information on this 
subject; although much has been written concerning the peculiar ad- 
vantages of different systems of Church-government, resulting from that 
feature by which the depository of the highest authority is fixed, yet 
too seldom has the inquiry been made: What saith the Bible on the 
subject ? 

If, on any question connected with the Church, the teachings of the 
Holy Scriptures are deemed important, surely on this great radicat 
question we should bow with the most implicit reverence and submission 
to what God has been pleased to ordain and establish, 

Upon this question, among the various orders of professed Christians, 
there are five different leading views: 

1, That the highest authority in the Church is vested in each congre- 
gation of Christians collectively. This is the theory of the Congregation. 
alists and Independents, 

2. That it is vested in the Pope, or some one individual, constituted 
the visible head of the Church. This is the theory of the Roman 
Catholics, or Papists, 


888 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


3. That it is vested in the ministers and lay officers taken together. 
This is the theory of the Presbyterians. 

4, That it is vested in a superior order in the ministry, constituted, as 
to the power of government and ordination, the apostles’ successors. 
This is the theory of Protestant Episcopalians. 

5. That it is vested in the ordained ministry, or eldership of the 
Church generally. This is the view of the Methodists, and of individ- 
uals in different denominations. 

So far as we are informed, all the different views on this subject wor- 
thy of attention are embraced in the five different systems above speci- 
fied. As to the notions of those who contend that “no particular form 
of Church-government is prescribed in Scripture,” it is clear that their 
theory necessarily implies that the highest power in the Church is not, 
by divine authority, assigned any definite position, and that, conse- 
quently, all Christians are left to arrange this principle of their consti- 
tution as they may judge expedient. 

In the discussion of this subject, we deem it unnecessary to enter upon 
the formal refutation of any of the conflicting theories specified. I? it 
can be shown from the Scriptures in whom the highest power in the 
government of the Church is vested, it will follow by consequence that 
all conflicting theories are disproved. That the Scriptures are explicit 
and satisfactory on this question is our clear conviction, and we shall 
present the evidence on which that conviction is founded. 

It cannot be doubted but that the holy apostles were invested with 
all the divine authority connected with the great work of their mission 
—the establishment and organization of the gospel Chureh—which the 
Saviour himself possessed. From this it necessarily follows that, as 
the Saviour had power to delegate his authority to the apostles, so had 
the apostles power to delegate their authority to others. It follows 
also, that if the apostles have failed to transmit to others the high au- 
thority for the ordering and government of the Church which they 
received of the Lord Jesus, that authority must have expired with 
them, and can exist nowhere in the Church, It can only exist where 
the apostles have placed it, and there it must exist. Therefore, if the 
high power of government in question exists in the collective body of 
each congregation, or any portion of them, it must be because the apos- 
tles themselves have thus transmitted it, and ordained its perpetuity. 
It will not do to argue that all societies possess the inherent right to 
ycvern themselves. Such reasoning may be valid when civil govern- 
ment or hwman institutions are in question ; but in reference to a divine 
institution it is futile and inadmissible. : 


Ch. vi.] THE HIGHEST GOVERNMENTAL AUTIIORITY. 889 


In the “beginning of Christ’s religion” it is most certain that the 
power of government was not in the congregations, or Churches col- 
lectively, but in the ministers who organized them. Ministers were 
before Churches were—Churches did not make or ordain the ministers, 
but ministers made or constituted Churches. Now, is it not undeniable 
that, as the highest power of government originally existed, not in the 
united congregation of the people, but in the ministry, it must remain 
in the ministry, unless it be fairly shown that the apostles have expressly 
ordered otherwise? 

But that we may decide this matter, we will examine the record of 
the teachings and doings of the apostles bearing upon the subject. We 
commence with the establishment of the first Christian Church at Jeru- 
salem on the day of Pentecost. About three thousand were added unto 
the Church by baptism on this occasion, In the account here given, 
there is not one word about the apostles delegating to this large com- 
munity, or to any portion of them, the right to make their own regula- 
tions and govern themselves; on the contrary, it is obvious that this 
right remained in the apostles, and was exercised by them. 

It is said (Acts ii. 42): “And they continued steadfastly in the apos- 
tles’ doctrine and fellowship”—clearly implying that they were still 
under the jurisdiction of the apostles. 

A few days after this about two thousand more were added to the 
Church; and still we find no evidence of the transfer of the govern- 
mental authority from the apostles, but direct proof to the contrary, 
So full and complete was the apostolic jurisdiction, that, when the peo- 
ple had sold their possessions, “they brought the prices of the things 
that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet.” Acts iv. 54, 35. 
Here we find that even the temporal treasures of the Church were sub- 
jected to the control of the apostles. 

But it may be contended that we find a transfer of governmental 
authority in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, when the 
“seven deacons” were appointed. The passage reads thus: “Then the 
twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is 
not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. 
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, 
ful! of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this 
business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the 
ministry of the word.” 

Now, it is contended that the right of electing the deacons was here 
transferred to the body of the Church—* the multitude of the disci- 
ples”---and that, consequently, with this elective franchise was trans 


890 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


ferred the governing power in the Church. In reference to this trans 
action we remark, that the mere fact that the apostles chose to consult 
the congregation as to the particular persons to be appointed deacons, 
does not prove that the jurisdiction of the apostles in the premises had 
been relinquished. As the particular exigency giving rise to the ap- 
pointment of the deacons at this time was an existing dissatisfaction in 
a portion of the congregation with the administration of affairs, it is 
quite reasonable to suppose that skillful governors might consult the 
choice of the congregation, even in a matter over which the entire 
authority and jurisdiction vested in themselves; and, as an evidence 
that such was the fact in the present instance, we remark the following 
particulars : 

1. The congregation did not choose these “deacons” till they had 
been directed so to do by the apostles; hence they were not exercising 
an independent authority of their own, but merely acting by permission, 
under direction of the apostles. 

2. The apostles prescribed the character of the persons to be selected. 

3. There is no evidence that the apostles would have ordained persons 
of a different character, had such been selected. 

4. The right of appointment was still retained by the apostles in their 
own hands. The apostles did not direct the congregation to select and 
appoint their own “deacons.” The command was: “Look ye out seven 
men whom we may appoint.” And, after they had been selected, they 
were not “deacons” until “they had set them before the apostles,” and 
they had “prayed, and laid their hands on them.” So we can find no 
evidence in this transaction of any settlement of the sovereign power 
in the whole or any portion of the congregation ; nor is there any proof 
that St. Peter, or any one of the apostles, was placed in authority over 
the others. The supreme authority was evidently in the “twelve,” 
without partition or preéminence. 

In the fifteenth chapter of The Acts, we have an account of the 
famous Apostolic Council at Jerusalem. Here we derive satisfactory 
evidence against the Congregational system of Church-polity, in its 
common acceptation. Had the apostles delegated to each congregation 
the sovereign right to govern themselves, independently of any superior 
jurisdiction or authority, we may be sure the Church at Antioch would 
have exercised that right, and settled their controversy in their own 
body. 

Again: Had each individual Church been constituted an independent 
hody, the decrees of the council in question could not have been issued 
as an official, authoritative document, obligatory on the Churches of 


Ch. vi.]J THE HIGHEST GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. 8U1 


“Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia,” as they evidently were ; and had each 
Church been constituted an independent body, then the action of the 
council could not have assumed the form it did. A council might have 
deliberated and come to a conclusion, but that conclusion would have 
been mere advice, and not law; but the very form in which the action 
of the council is recorded, demonstrates that it possessed the attribute 
of authority and law. St. James says: “ Wherefore my sentence is,” 
ete.—that is, my decision; or, as Chrysostom parapbrases it. “T with 
authority say this.” 

We learn, also, from this transaction, that St. Peter had not been 
constituted the supreme visible head of the Church. Had such been 
the fact, the appeal would have been made to him, and the sentence 
would have gone forth in his name and under his authority; but he 
seems to have had no preéminence whatever. He did not even preside 
in the council—St. James was the presiding officer. He spoke last, 
and formally announced the decision ; but we cannot infer from this that 
he possessed any right to decide this question more than belonged to 
each of the other apostles. His apparent superiority resulted, no doubt, 
from the circumstance of his acting as President of the council; and 
that fact is readily accounted for on the probable supposition that, by 
an understanding among the apostles, the special jurisdiction over the 
Church at Jerusalem had been assigned to him. 

The appeal was made to “the apostles,” “the apostles’ 
together on the occasion, “the apostles” agreed unanimously in the 
decision, and the official document was issued in the name of “the 
apostles ;” and all this without any evidence of the preéminence of one 
over the others. Hence it appears that the apostles were still exercising 
that supreme authority over the Church with which they had originally 
been invested by the Lord Jesus. 

But the inquiry may arise, If the apostles were thus supremely 
authorized, could not any one of them have decided the question? and 
whence the necessity for calling the council? To this it may be replied, 
that this council was not convened for the purpose of enlightening the 
apostles, but to give greater influence to their decision, and secure har- 
mony in the Church. Any one of the apostles could have decided the 
question ; and Paul and Barnabas had already decided it. They “had 
no small dissension and disputation” with a portion of the Church at 
Antioch on the subject; but the authority of every apostle, and espe- 
cially that of St. Paul, was not everywhere understood and acknowl- 
edged as it should have been. It was to remedy this evil, and to pro- 
duce an acquiescence in the apostolic doctrine of justification by faith 


’ assembled 


892 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv B.1 


alone, that this council deliberated, and issued their joint authoritative 
decrees, 

If it be alleged that the fact that the apostles assembled to deliberate 
in council cannot comport with the view we have presented of the high 
prerogatives with which they were endowed, we reply; First. The “much 
disputing” which oceurred in the council does not appear to have been 
a work of the apostles, but of others assembled with them. Secondly. 
The apostles spoke last of all, and were perfectly harmonious in their 
sentiments. Thirdly. It does not follow, from the fact that the apostles 
were inspired, that they were at all times favored so immediately with 
the divine guidance as entirely to supersede the importance of deliber- 
ation. Fourthly. It is evident that, in this matter, they acted under the 
immediate authority of God; for their decrees are prefaced with these 
words: “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us.” 

But there is yet another important matter in connection with this 
council to be considered—the apostles were not alone on this occa- 
sion. The appeal was made unto “the apostles and elders.” “The 
apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter;” the de- 
cision “pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole Chuch;” the 
epistle containing the decrees was in the name of “the apostles, and 
elders, and brethren,” and when the messengers went forth to the 
Churches, “they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were or- 
dained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” Here the 
question arises, Who were these “elders and brethren?” and why are 
they associated with the apostles? The Presbyterian has fancied that 
the account here given furnishes a clear divine warrant for depositing 
the sovereign power of Church-government in the Kirk-session, com- 
posed of the minister and several lay elders; or a model for a presby- 
tery or synod, composed of clerical and lay representatives. 

As to the peculiar character of these “elders”—whether they were 
nunisters or mere laymen—that is a question which can have no bear- 
ing upon the point now in hand. Our present inquiry is this: Did the 
apostles transmit to these “elders” the right to exercise that sovereign 
power in the Church which, as we have seen, they themselves had _re- 
ceived of the Lord Jesus? We do not inquire whether the apostles so 
transferred this power out of their hands upon these “elders” as to 
cease to possess it themselves. No one supposes they did this. But the 
question is, Were these elders divinely authorized by the apostles to 
exercise the same sovereign jurisdiction over the Church which the 
apostles exercised ? 

We think that the mere fact that the Church at Antioch sent their 


Ch. vi. THE HIGHEST GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, 893 


question up to “the apostles and elders” can furnish no evidence that 
these “elders” possessed authority equal to that of the apostles. The 
fact that the contentious Judaizers of that Church were not at once sat- 
isfied with the decision and arguments of Paul and Barnabas, is proof 
conclusive that they either did not understand or did not appreciate the 
high prerogatives of the apostolic office ; hence they desired the apostles’ 
decision to be corroborated by the sanction of the elders of the first 
established Church at Jerusalem. It is also reasonable to suppose that 
the great body of the Church at Antioch, however well satisfied they 
themselves might be with the judgment of Paul and Barnabas, would 
desire also the corroborating testimony of the “apostles and elders,” 
knowing that such decision would tend greatly to the production of gen- 
eral satisfaction on the vexed question. 

But it seems the elders did meet with the apostles, and probably took 
part in the deliberation ; and it is demanded, Why did the apostles per- 
mit this, unless the elders possessed equal powers with themselves? To 
this we reply, that although the apostles possessed the right, ew cathedrd, 
to decide all matters concerning the Church, yet they were prudent 
administrators, and, as such, they frequently consulted with others, and 
were ready to listen to their arguments. When the “seven deacons” 
were appointed, although the apostles possessed in themselves the soy- 
ereign right of appointment, yet they submitted their selection to the 
congregation.- Even so here, although the apostles, as a college, or any 
one of them alone, possessed a divine right to decide the matter in con- 
troversy, yet they chose to exercise that right in such form as would be 
likely to wield the greatest influence over the Churches generally, and 
be productive of the most satisfactory and beneficial results. Hence, 
not only “the elders” were consulted, but the approval of “the whole 
Church” was secured, and the decretal epistle was in the name of “the 
apostles, and elders, and brethren.” 

The only question involved in the matter we are now discussing is 
that of authority. Did the “elders,” or “the elders and brethren,” pos- 
sess the same divine authority to act in the premises which belonged to 
the apostles? To suppose that they did, would imply that they could 
have decided the matter without the ratification of the apostles—yea, 
that any one of them could have issued a divinely authoritive decision ; 
for it is certain that the official act of any one of the apostles would 
have been clothed with all the authority of Heaven. But will any one 
suppose that a decision from one of the “elders,” or from “ the elders 
and the whole Church,” would have been authoritative without the 
apostolic seal? It was this which fixed upon the decrees the stamp of 


894 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


the divine authority. The Lord Jesus Christ had said to bis chosen 
“twelve”: “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” 
1t was this unfailing promise which secured to the apostles, in all their 
official acts, the divine guidance, and authorized them to preface their 
decrees with these remarkable words: “It seemed good to the Holy 
Ghost, and to us.” 

We think it must now be manifest that the history of this council 
presents no proof that the sovereign power in the government of the 
Church belonged as yet to any person or persons but the apostles. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VI. 


Question 1. What is the first thing] 7. What is the argument in reference 


to be considered in the -nvestiga- to the “seven deacons,” whose ap- 
tion of the character of a govern- pointment is recorded in the sixth 
ment? chapter of The Acts? 

2. What five leading views are stated| 8. In reference to this case, what four 
with regard to the depository of facts are inferred ? 
the highest authority in Church-| 9. What is the argument on the subject 
government, and by whom have founded on the account given of 
they been respectively advocated ? the council at Jerusalem, in the 

3. Are the Scriptures explicit on this fifteenth chapter of The Acts? 
question ? 10. Who met with the apostles in this 

4. What may we infer from the author- council? 
ity with which the apostles were | 11. Were the apostles all hazwonious in 
invested ? their opinions ? 

5 In the beginning of Christ’s religion, | 12. Were the decrees of the council au- 
why could not the power of gov- thoritative ? 
ernment have existed in the con-| 13. What fact gave them the seal of 
gregations ? divine authority? 

8 What is proved on the subject from | 14 In whom, then, docs it appear that 
the second and fourth chapters of the sovereign power of govern 


The Acts of the Apostles? ment as yet was deposited ? 


Ch vul THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. 896 


CHARTERS ViETs 


THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY —DEPOSITED IN THE ORDAINED 
ELDERSHIP. 


Havine seen in the preceding chapter that the inspired apostles, 
while they remained with the Church, possessed and exercised supreme 
governmental control over it, we now inquire to whom they committed 
the permanent exercise of this prerogative. 

In the first place, that Timothy and Titus, as evangelists, were com 
missioned by the Apostle Paul to exercise, under his directions, apos- 
tolic jurisdiction—the one at Ephesus, and the other in Crete—is very 
clear from the apostolic epistles. That this jurisdiction extended not 
only over Churches, but likewise over ministers, is also manifest. But 
there is no evidence that the apostles placed a similar control in the 
hands of an individual minister over the ministers and Churches gen- 
erally, or in any other place. 

Now, the question arises, what is the reasonable inference from the 
fact, as above stated? That we may be the better judge of this matter, 
we will examine the record. In 1 Tim. i. 3, 4, St. Paul says to Tim- 
othy: “As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into 
Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other 
doctrine, neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, wlich 
minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith; so dr ~ 
And in the eighteenth verse: “This charge I commit unto thee, sor 
Timothy,” ete. Here we see a solemn charge committed by St. Paul to 
Timothy, imparting jurisdictional prerogative over the Church at Eph- 
esus, both of the ministers and laity. 

In the third chapter of this epistle, St. Paul delivers to Timothy 
minute instructions as to the character and qualifications of bishops 
and deacons. And this is evidently done that Timothy might be the 
better able to select and ordain suitable persons for those offices, and 
retain only such in office; or, at least, call the unworthy to account for 
improper conduct. He says: “ Let these also first be proved; then let 
them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.” Near the 


896 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (PAW Bai 


close of the chapter, St. Paul adds: “These things write I unto thee, 
hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou might- 
est know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God.” 

In the fourth chapter, after having delivered various directions and 
admonitions concerning the doctrine that should be preached, he says: 
“These things command and teach. Let no man despise thy youth ”— 
that is, not only teach the pastors what they should preach, but “com- 
mand” them, exercise authority over them; and lest they be unwilling 
to be supervised by so young a man, take heed to be grave in thy de- 
portment—*“ Let no man despise thy youth.” 

In the fifth chapter, Timothy is instructed how to proceed in adl- 
monishing the “elders”: “ Rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a 
father.” In the same chapter we read: “ Let the elders that rule well 
be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the 
word and doctrine. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the 
ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his re- 
ward. Against an elder, receive not an accusation, but before two or 
three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may 
fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one be- 
fore another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no 
man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins.” 

We think it must be apparent to the candid mind that no consistent 
interpretation can be put upon this paragraph without finding in it the 
most conclusive evidence that Timothy was invested with the high pre- 
rogatives of the apostolate, both as it regards government and ordination. 

First. His jurisdiction extended even to the matter of the ministers’ 
salaries: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double 
honor.” Chrysostom, Whitby, Scott, Benson, Clarke, and all the best 
critics, agree that this “double honor” means “a more liberal main- 
tenance.” Dr. Clarke affirms that “almost every critic of note allows 
that tu7) here signifies reward, stipend, wages.” Now Timothy, as exer- 
cising apostolic rule over pastors and Churches, was to see to it that 
the pastors’ salaries were adjusted in proportion to the extent of their 
labors. 

Again. Instructions were given as to the manner in which an elder 
should be brought to account for his conduct: “Against an elder re- 


” a 


ceive not an accusation, but before two or three Witnesses.” He is also 


before all.” He is solemnly charged to “observe these things without 
preferring one before another.” 


Ch. v1i.] THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. 8Y7 


Lastly. He is not only fully instructed as to his superintendency over 
elders, deacons, and people, but he is directed how to proceed in the 
exercise of his apostolic jurisdiction. 

Near the close of this Epistle St. Paul repeats his solemn charge to 
Timothy in the following words: “TI give thee charge in the sight of 
God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before 
Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession, that thou keep this com 
mandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” And again he adds: “O Timothy, keep that which is 
committed to thy trust.” We may understand the apostle here, by the 
word “commandment,” as embracing the entire summary of instruc- 
tion contained in this Epistle. T'his he is charged to keep “until the 
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.” On this Dr. Clarke comments 
thus: “Hand it down pure, and let thy conduct be a comment on it, 
that it may continue in the world and in the Church till the coming of 
Christ.” 

In the second Kpistle to Timothy we have his ordination and investi- 
ture, with the prerogatives of his office, specifically named: “ Where- 
fore I put thee in remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which 
is in thee by the putting on of my hands.” 2 Tim. i. 6. “That good 
thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which 
dwelleth in us.” 2 Tim. i. 14. “And the things which thou hast heard 
of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, 
who shall be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. ii. 2. 

In these passages we see Timothy expressly authorized to invest other 
“faithful men” with the ministerial functions, implying provision for 
the perpetuation of an ordained ministry in the Church, 

We next examine the Epistle to Titus. In the fifth verse of the first 
chapter, the investiture of Titus with the prerogatives of the apostolate 
is set forth: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set 
in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as 
I had appointed thee.” Notice, first, the work assigned him: He is 
to “set in order the things that are wanting.” This is a general, broad 
commission, embracing every thing pertaining to the organization of 
the Churches. St. Paul proceeds, as he had done in the case of Tim: 
othy, to specify the kind of persons to be ordained to the presbyterate : 
“Tf any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful chil- 
dren, not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, 
as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to 
wine, no striker, not given to filthy Jucre; but a lover of hospitality, a 
lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate ; holding fast the faith. 

AT 


898 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


ful word, as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doe: 
trine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are 
many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, . . -<whosemouths.must 
be stopped,” And in the nineteenth verse, he commands Titus to 
~““yebuke” false teachers “sharply.” 

Again, in the fifteenth verse of the second chapter, we read these 
words: “These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” 
In the tenth verse of the third chapter, we have these words: “A man 
that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” 

On the subject of the quotations just made we need not enlarge 
They are so explicit concerning the authority with which Titus was in- 
vested that their force cannot easily be evaded. We here find, first, a 
minute description of the kind of persons to be ordained to the minis- 
terial office. Secondly, Titus is instructed to silence some, for the apos- 
tle designates certain characters “whose mouths must be stopped.” 

Again, he is instructed on the subject of official admonitions. He is 
told to “rebuke with all authority.” Not only to deliver a Sriendly 
“rebuke,” but an authoritative one—to “rebuke with all authority.” 
Finally, he is clothed with authority to excommunicate: “A man that 
is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.” 

In reference to Timothy and Titus, we present the following general 
remarks: 

From the scriptures adduced, it is evident that neither the Congre- 
gational nor the Presbyterian form of Church-government could have 
existed in those districts at that time. On the supposition that either 
of those forms of government had already been set up, these itiner- 
ant antruders, as they would have been considered, would have been 
promptly met by the congregations or the Church-sessions, as the case 
might have been, and repulsed with such language as the following: 
“What high and unconstitutional pretensions are these which you set 
up over us? We elect and induct our own pastors; we have our Church- 
session through which we administer discipline, our presbyters judge 
of the qualifications of candidates for orders, and perform the ordina- 
tion service.” It is most evident, upon the supposition that either Con- 
gregationalism or Presbyterianism had been set up, that the commis- 
sions of Timothy and Titus would have come in direct conflict with 
those systems, and could not have been carried out. And it is also 
clear that, while those Churches continued to recognize Timothy and 
Titus with the authority committed to them by the apostle, neither of 
those forms of government could have originated. That the power of 
government, in these instances, was vested in Timothy and Titus, is 


Uh. vii. THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. 899 


undeniable. It was neither exercised by the congregation collectively, 
nor by the minister in connection with his lay elders. 

The argument for High-church Episcopalianism, founded on the 
cases of Timothy and Titus, may easily be shown to be sophistical, 
when met in a proper, scriptural manner. It is not, however, to be 
wverturned by a denial of the fact that Timothy and Titus were in- 
vested with episcopal jurisdiction over both Churches and ministers in 
their respective fields for a specific purpose, and under apostolic ap 
pointment. The sophistry in the argument referred to consists in con 
cluding from this fact, that therefore this was the settled apostolic plan, 
adopted by the apostles everywhere, and by them commanded to be 
earried out and perpetuated, 

It cannot be proved that the apostolic jurisdiction of Timothy and 
Titus was a permanent settlement of authority in them. Indeed, it is 
most obvious that they acted in the capacity of temporary agents of 
St. Paul, doing his specific bidding in reference to matters to which he 
had not time to give his personal attention. 

Again, the fact that the Churches of Ephesus and Crete, and the min- 
isters already among them, were apostolically recognized as such before 
the episcopal miter, here claimed for Timothy and Titus, had been con- 
ferred, together with the fact that, among the numerous other Churches 
organized, and ministers set apart, under the apostolic administration, 
there is no intimation that any such arrangement as that in reference 
to Timothy and Titus was intended or authorized, demonstrates clearly 
that the plea here urged for Episcopalianism, as of divine right, is un- 
founded and fallacious. We can find nothing in the case of these 
evangelists, or anywhere else in Scripture, to sanction the position 
that the office of a bishop pertains to an order in the ministry supe- 
rior to that of a presbyter, and by divine right having control over 
the eldership, and the sole right to ordain. We must conclude that 
this is an assumption of prerogative wholly unwarranted by the word 
of God. 

Yet since it is clear that Timothy and Titus were endued with a tem- 
porary episcopal jurisdiction over ministers and Churches in their re 
spective fields, we may very rationally infer that, under some circum. 
stances, the episcopal form of government may be preferable to any 
other; and on the ground of expediency, not of divine right, may advan 
tageously be adopted. 

From what has been already presented from the Scriptures, we think 
the following positions are manifestly inferable : 

1. That during the lives of the inspired apostles, supreme authority, 


900 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. Ba 


not only to unfold the doctrines of Christianity, but also to organize 
and govern the Church, was divinely vested in them. 

2. That the apostles exercised this authority, so far as practicable, 
by their own personal agency and immediate supervision, but that in 
the work of organizing and governing the Churches, as a matter of 
convenience, they sometimes intrusted their high prerogative to certain 
approved evangelists (as Timothy and Titus), under specific instrue 
tions, as their selected agents 01 deputies. 

3. But since there is no evidence that these high prerogatives of gov- 
ernment, so clearly pertaining to the inspired apostles and the evangel- 
ists under them, were transferred to any others, therefore the inference 
is plain that such apostolic prerogatives were extraordinary, and not 
intended to be perpetuated in the Church. 

4. Since it is indisputable that many Churches existed under the 
apostolic administration, over whom no minister was placed as superin- 
tendent over ministers and Churches, with such high prerogatives as 
were conferred on Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, it necessa- 
rily follows that, though an episcopal organization after that model 
may be expedient and advisable in certain cases, yet there is no ground 
for the inference that such high prerogatives pertain to any class of 
ministers by divine right, or in virtue of a superiority of order; or that 
other Churches, not thus superintended, are not apostolically consti- 
tuted, nor the ordinances by them administered valid and efficacious. 

Where, it may well be asked, is the first syllable of testimony to 
show that the apostles placed the Churches at Rome, at Corinth, at 
Thessalonica, at Antioch, at Philippi, or even at Jerusalem, under a 
Jurisdiction like unto that given to Timothy at Ephesus, or to Titus in 
Crete? And yet these were all bona fide apostolic Churches, the in- 
spired apostles themselves being the judges. Can it therefore, we de- 
mand, be consistent with Christian meekness for any one claiming to 
be a follower of Christ to denounce as no branch of the Church such 
Churches as the inspired apostles themselves planted and watered, and 
recognized ? 

That episcopacy, in the modern acceptation of the term, cannot be 
maintained from the Scriptures as of divine right, or as essential to the 
validity, or even to the apostolicity, of either Churches, ministers, or sac- 
raments, is a position, in connection with Churech-polity, which we con- 
sider perfectly impregnable. The impartial student of ecclesiastical 
history will find that the same ground that we here assume has been 
occupied by many of the wisest and best informed in the Church from 
the earliest ages, and at all subsequent periods. It was the platform of 


Uh. vii.] THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY 901 


Cyprian in the third century, of Epiphanius and Jerome in the fourth 
century, and was maintained by Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, and 
a mighty host of distinguished scholars and divines, in more modern 
times. This position is not only more consonant with Scripture, but is 
certainly more consistent with the mild charity and wide-expansive 
eatholicity of the gospel than that pent-up and exclusive dogma which 
struts forth in assumed dignity, exclaiming, “We are the Church: with 
us alone are Christ’s valid ministers, and all others are intruders—with 
us alone are the valid ordinances administered, and the covenanted 
mercies of Heaven sealed!” Let episcopacy, as the Bible warrants, 
place itself on the ground of expediency, and bishops above presbyters, 
as Jerome says, “by the custom of the Church,” and not of divine 
right, and many others may, with Wesley, “ prefer the episcopal form 
of Church-government.” 

If, then, as we have endeavored to show, the apostles have not trans- 
ferred the high prerogatives of Church-government which they pos- 
sessed and exercised to a superior order in the ministry to be perpetu- 
ated in the Church as their successors in this jurisdiction, the question 
arises, To whom did they transfer the governmental power of the 
Church? and in what sense is this power to be understood? 

To the above inquiry we reply, that the New Testament teaches 
plainly that the government of the Church 1s committed to the ordained 
presbyters, or elders. 

This will appear from the following scriptures: “Take heed there- 
fore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy 
Ghost hath made you overseers.” Acts xx. 28. The term -here used, 
énuaxérove, means bishops, or superintendents; hence the apostle here 
teaches that these Ephesian elders were constituted by “the Holy 
Ghost” the rulers of the Churehes. Again, the same apostle, in’ speci- 
fying the qualifications of an “elder,” says, he should be “one that 
ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all 
gravity; for if a man. know not how to rule his own house, how shall 
he take care of the Church of God?” 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5. 

St. Peter says to the “elders”: “Feed the flock of God which is 
among you, taking the oversight thereof.” 1 Pet. v. 2. The Greek word 
here used is éteaxorobvtec, meaning that these “elders” were to exercise 
the office of bishop, overseer, or superintendent, over the Church, clearly 
implying an apostolic delegation of the ruling power to them. Once 
more, St. Paul says: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and sub- 
mit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give 
account.” Heb. xiii. 17. Here it is manifest that the ruling power in 


902 ELEMENT OF DIVINITY. (Pov Be} 


the Churches is vested in those ministers who are placed over them as 
their pastors or spiritual guides. 

In the second and third chapters of the book of Revelation, our Sav- 
iour delivers a special and solemn address to the “angel” of each of 
the seven principal Churches of Asia. From these addresses we think 
it apparent that the power of government in each of those Churches 
was neither in the whole congregation nor in the minister and his lay 
elders, but in the presiding minister placed as “overseer” in pastoral 
charge of the Church. Thomas Scott says this angel was “the stated 
messenger, or embassador, of Christ among them.” Benson says, he 
was “the pastor, presiding elder, or bishop, called an angel because he 
was God’s messenger.” Dr. Clarke says: “By ‘angel, we are to un- 
derstand the messenger, or person sent by God to preside over this 
Church.” And in reference to Ephesus, he adds: “The angel or bishop 
at this time was most probably Timothy, who presided over that Church 
before St. John took up his residence there, and who is supposed to 
have continued in that office till A.D. 97.” 

Critics and commentators are agreed that the “angel” was the mes: 
senger, bishop, or pastor, presiding over the Church at the time; hence 
it appears that the power of government in these Churches, respect- 
ively, was vested in this “angel.” To him the addresses were sent. 
He is admonished, censured, or threatened with punishment for the 
disorder or heresy of the Church. Now, if the power of government 
was in the hands of the whole congregation, or of the minister and lay 
elders, why is this “angel” alone held responsible? Upon the supposi- 
tion that in each of those Churches the minister in charge was invested 
with the power of government, the whole matter is plain; but upon 
any other hypothesis, it is inexplicable. 

From the scriptural proofs presented, it is unquestionable that the 
right of government and the administration of the discipline of the 
Churches are placed in the hands of the elders, or ministers, having 
the pastoral charge thereof. But as there is no specific restriction or 
instruction to the contrary, they may of course, so far as they deem it ex- 
pedient, exercise this governing power through the medium of councils, 
conventions, synods, conferences, or presbyteries ; or they may commit 
the exercise of a portion of this prerogative to certain chief ministers, 
styled bishops, general superintendents, or presiding elders. And that 
such was the practice of the Church, even in apostolic times, we have 
ample evidence in the history of the famous council at Jerusalem, and 
in the special prerogatives with which Timothy and Titus were in. 
vested. 


Ch. vii.) THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY, 908 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER VII. 


Question 1. With what kind of author-| 8. Is there any evidence that these 


ity did St. Paul invest Timothy 
and Titus? 


high prerogatives were conferred 
on any other persons? 


2. Is there any evidence that they con-| 9. What is the inference from this 
ferred similar power on any other fact? 
minister, or established similar reg- | 10. Did many apostolic Churches exist, 


ulations in any other place? 

. What is the testimony quoted from 
the Epistles to Timothy ? 

. What is the testimony quoted from 
the Epistle to Titus ? 

. In reference to Timothy and Titus, 
what general remarks are made? 

. What is the argument, founded on 
what is said in the second and third 
chapters of Revelation, concerning 
the “angels” of the seven Churches 
of Asia? 

. From the arguments adduced, where 
was the highest power of Church- 
government vested during the lives 
of the apostlee and evangelists? 


ie 


14; 


that were not placed under a sim- 
ilar regimen to those of Ephesus 
and in Crete, under Timothy and 
Titus ? 

What is the inference to be drawn 
from this fact? 


. Where, then, did the apostles de- 


posit the power of Church-govern- 
ment? 


. What scriptures prove that thie 


power was deposited in the or- 
dained ministry ? 

What two general conclusions are 
arrived at from the foregoing? 


904 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {Pura 


CLAP DE Ra Vii be 


THE MINISTRY—DIFFERENT ORDERS—ORDINATION OF THE MINISTRY 
—ITS CONNECTION WITH THE CHURCHES. 


Tne Christian Church is evidently an institution not only divine in 
its origin, but vastly important in its character. As is clear from the 
Scriptures, it was intended by its sovereign Founder that it should 
supersede the Mosaic institution, and “break in pieces and consume” 
all earthly kingdoms. According to the decree of God, it was to be 
universal in extent and everlasting in duration. Such being its char 
acter and importance, we might reasonably suppose that, in the divine 
arrangement and procedure, it would not only be furnished with an 
inspired code of moral and religious duty, of faith and practice—a clear 
exposition of the plan of salvation under the gospel—but also with an 
intelligible outline of the great and leading features of the organization 
and polity of the Christian Church itself, so far as necessary to its valid- 
ity, purity, and success. 

I. Among the prominent features connected with the organization of 
the apostolic Churches, it will strike the careful examiner that the 
CHRISTIAN MINISTRY occupies a conspicuous place. This ministry was 
instituted by the great Head and Founder of the Church as the leading 
instrumentality through which the gospel should be propagated, 
Churches organized, and the ordinances and discipline duly adminis- 
tered. 

In the New Testament a variety of terms are used to designate the 
office-bearers of the Church, We are not, however, authorized to sup- 
pose that each of these terms points to a separate and distinct officer. 
St. Paul gives the following enumeration: “And he gave some, apostles; 
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teach- 
ers.” Eph. iv. 11. In addition to these, we are informed that the 
Church was supplied with bishops, elders, and deacons. It is very evi- 
dent that all these different terms are not intended each to describe 
a separate and distinct officer. It is manifest that the peculiar work 
indicated by several of these terms often pertains to the same person, 


Uh. viii.) THE MINISTRY—DIFFERENT ORDERS. NOS 


and that person was designated sometimes by one of the terms, and 
sometimes by another, St. Paul more than once styles the same per- 
sons both bishops and elders. The import of the terms themselves will 
plainly indicate the sense in which they were used, thus: 

1. The term “apostle” signifies one sent; and in this sense it is ap- 
plicable to every minister called and sent of God to preach the gospel, 
and is evidently, as has already been shown, intended to be perpetuated 
te “the end of the world.” 

2. The term “prophet” means one who foretells; and, in this connec- 
tion, is applicable to every minister of the gospel, implying that he 
proclaims the promises of God to the faithful, and his denunciations 
against the wicked. 

3. The term “bishop” means overseer, or superintendent, and applies 
to every gospel minister as he may have the spiritual oversight of a 
Church, or of Churches and ministers. 

4. The term “presbyter,” or “elder,” denotes one of age or experience, 
or, in this connection, one ordained with ministerial authority for the 
governmental control of a Church or Churches. 

5. The term “deacon” means one who serves or acts for others, and 
applies to those ministers who were ordained in special charge of the 
poor and the sick. That these were not mere laymen, appears not only 
from the fact of their ordination, and from the additional fact that 
several of the deacons ordained in the Church at Jerusalem were able 
and successful preachers, but from the necessary qualifications of this 
order, as stated by St. Paul. 

6. The term “pastor” signifies a shepherd, and applies to every min- 
ister placed in care of a Church. 

7. The term “evangelist” denotes a proclaimer of good news, and ap- 
plies to every gospel minister, as he may spread the gospel abroad, or 
get up new Churches. 

8. The term “teacher” implies one who instructs, and pertains to every 
minister of the gospel, as he may expound the sacred word. 

From the foregoing it will be readily perceived that nearly all: these 
offices may meet in the same person, or that a person may be authorized 
to perform only a small portion of them. In the New Testament view, 
all of God’s ministers in this wide sense are apostles, for they are all 
ealled and sent of God to preach; they are all prophets, for they all 
authoritatively declare the promises of God to the faithful, and his 
threatenings against the wicked ; and they are all teachers, for they all, 
more or less, explain the gospel system. But they are not all pastors. 
for all have not the care of Churches: they are uot all evangelists, for 


906 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.1v. BLL 


all are not engaged in spreading the gospel in new places, or organizing 
new Churches; they are not all deacons, for all are not ordained to 
minister to the sick and the poor; they are not all elders, for all are 
not ordained as spiritual rulers of the Church; nor are all bishops, for 
all do not preside over Churches, or over Churches and ministers. 

That deacons are the inferior order of ministers, and elders, or bishops, 
the superior order, appears from these words of St. Paul: “They that 
have used the office of a deacon well, purchase to themselves a good 
degree, and great boldness in the faith.” This clearly implies promotion 
to a higher position in the ministry. 

II. As respects the NATURE of that government which the office-bearers 
are warranted in exercising over the Christian Church, it is purely 
spiritual. Christ’s kingdom being “not of this world,” the rulers of his 
Church have no authority to inflict pains and penalties by fines, im- 
prisonment, or corporal punishment, like civil governments, but must 
rely solely on admonition, reproof, and excommunication. It is plainly 
the duty of the rulers of the Church to advise and counsel with those 
over whom they exercise spiritual control, and secure, as far as may be, 
their approval and coéperation ; but still these Church-rulers are held 
responsible to the Head of the Church —‘“ who hath counted them 
‘worthy, putting them into the ministry”—as much for the due admin- 
istration of his ordinances and discipline as for the faithful preaching 
of his word; and hence they cannot, as faithful stewards, relinquish to 
the laity this governmental responsibility with which they have been 
intrusted by the Lord Jesus. 

The constitution and laws according to which the government and 
discipline of the Church should be administered, are comprised in the 
New Testament; and these statutes are not subject to modification, 
amendment, or repeal. But should the rulers of the Church attempt 
to “lord it over God’s heritage,” the remedy of the people against any 
supposed usurpation or maladministration is in remonstrance, protesta- 
tion, appeal to a higher ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and finally, when 
the evil becomes so great that it can only be submitted to by the sac- 
rifice of a good conscience, withdrawal from a corrupt and apostate 
Church. 

ORDINATION OF THE MINISTRY. 

We now present it as one of the foundation principles in connection 
with the ministry of the New Testament Church, that— 

Each organized Church should be placed under the pastoral charge of 
one or more ordained elders or ministers; and other ministers, not in pas 
toral care of Churches, should be employed as evangelists or missionaries 


Ch. viii. ] THE MINISTRY—DIFFERENT ORDERS. 907 


for the purpose of spreading the gospel, and getting up and organizing 
new Churches. 

Christ “ordained twelve that they should be with him, and that he 
might send them forth to preach.” Mark iii. 14. 

The apostles, with the solemnities of prayer and the casting of lots, 
set apart Matthias to fill the vacancy in the apostolate caused by the 
apostasy of Judas (Acts i.). 

The apostles, by prayer and the laying on of hands, consecrated chosen 
men to the office of deacon (Acts vi.). 

Saul and Barnabas, by the soiemnities of fasting, prayer, and the 
laying on of hands, were set apart to the special work of a mission to 
the Gentiles (Acts xiii.). 

Timothy was consecrated by the laying on of the hands of St. Pau 
and of the presbytery (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6). 

Timothy and Titus, under the express instructions of St. Paul, or- 
dained elders and deacons, of approved character, in all the Churches 
in Crete and the regions of Ephesus (1 Tim. iii., v. 22; Titus i. 5.). 

From these examples, recorded in the inspired history of the Chris: 
tian Church, of numerous approved persons being expressly chosen 
and solemnly ordained to the ministerial office, and in the absence of 
any intimation that any were allowed to exercise the functions of the 
sacred office without such approval and ordination, we deduce the 
inference that an ordained ministry is the divinely established instru- 
mentality through which a properly organized Church was to be estab- 
lished and perpetuated, and the ordinances and discipline duly admin- 
istered. 

IV. We next invite attention to the conNEcrion established, ac- 
cording to the New Testament history, between the ministers and the 
Churches. 

On this point, in modern times, a diversity of sentiment has obtained. 
Some have contended for the ordination of a settled pastorate over all 
the Churches, whilst others have advocated a transient itinerancy as being 
most in accordance with the apostolic plan. 

If we understand the teachings of the New Testament on this sub 
ject, the elements of the regular pastorate relation and of the itinerancy 
were both embodied in the apostolical plan and operations. The one 
was needed for the government and pastoral charge of organized 
Churches; the other for the spreading of the gospel and the getting up 
of new Churches. 

The apostles were extraordinary ministers, endued with all the au- 
thority of Christ himself in the establishment, organization, and contro] 


908 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv B.i 


of the Churches. In the grand commission under which they acted, 
they were commanded to “ go into all the world, and preach the gospel 
to every creature.” As yet no Churches existed under the New Testa- 
ment economy. The world was before them as their parish. Accord- 
ingly we find them traveling at large, gaining converts to the new faith, 
and organizing Churches. LAPS 

Others, such as Timothy, Titus, and Barnabas, were soon ordained to 
the ministry, and associated with the apostles as evangelists or mission- 
aries in the great work of extending the influence of the gospel abroad, 
and organizing Churches in distant lands; hence it is clear that we 
find in the history of the Church, as recorded in the New Testament, 
ample authority for an itinerant ministry in the propagation of the gos- 
pel. This was the grand evangelistic or missionary lever which, under 
God, “turned the world upside down,” and in one century spread the 
doctrines of the cross commensurate with the Roman Empire. 

On the other hand, it is equally clear, from the testimony of New 
‘Testament history, that, in all places where the apostles, or the evangel- 
ists under them, established and organized Churches, they placed over 
them regular pastors having the oversight and care thereof. To this 
important feature in New Testament history we now turn our attention. 

In the fourteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we have an 
account of the course pursued by the apostles in the organization of 
the Churches. St. Paul and St. Barnabas, according to the record, 
took an extensive tour in visiting the newly-formed Churches, “ confirm- 
ing the brethren,” and setting things in order. They “ordained them 
elders in every Church” to exercise over these several congregations the 
pastoral care. Dr. Clarke, in his comment on the twenty-third verse 
of this chapter says: “They appointed persons, the most experienced 
and the most advanced in the divine life, to watch over and instruct the 
rest.” And he adds: “TI believe the simple truth to be this, that in 
ancient times the people chose, by the lifting up of hands, their spiritual 
pastor; and the rulers of the Church, whether apostles or others, ap- 
pointed that person to his office by the imposition of hands.” 

Upon the same passage Mr. Benson remarks: “This custom of or- 
daining elders in the Churches which he planted Paul invariably 
observed, in order that the brethren, being united together under the 
direction of stated teachers and leaders, might increase the more in 
grace.” 

As an evidence that such was the general course in all the apostolic 
Churches, we find St. Paul giving express instructions to Titus as to the 
course to be pursued in the Churches in Crete, which at that time was 


Ch. viii.] THE MINISTRY—DIFFRRENT ORDERS. 909 


a very populous island, containing, as historiai.s state, about a hundred 
cities; and yet St. Paul tells Titus to “ ordain elders in every city.” And 
he then goes on to describe the character and duties of these elders, in 
such style as to leave the conclusion inevitable that they were to be the 
regular pastors and rulers of the Churches. Mr. Benson, in comment: 
ing on this passage, remarks as follows: “That is, that thou shouldest 
perfect what was left unfinished at my departure, or mightest settle the 
affairs which I had not time to settle myself; and ‘ordain elders (pas- 
tors or teachers, the same with bishops) in every city’ where there are 
Churches,” 

Here, then, we have the testimony of Mr. Benson that these “elders” 
were regular pastors, and that every Church, according to the instrue- 
tions of St. Paul, was to he thus supplied. Dr. Clarke’s comment on 
the passage is in the following words: “It appears from this that St. 
Paul did not spend much time in Crete, and that he was obliged to 
leave it before he had got the Church properly organized. ‘Ordain 
elders in every city, that thou mightest appoint persons well instructed 
in divine things, who should be able to instruct others, and observe and 
enforce the discipline of the Church. It appears that those who are 
called ‘elders’ in this place are the same as those termed ‘bishops,’ 
verse seventh.” 

Now, according to Dr. Clarke, St. Paul did not consider a Church 
“properly organized” till a regular pastor, or bishop, was ordained and 
placed over it as its stated teacher and ruler. Perhaps it. would be 
superfluous to give the testimony of any additional commentators on 
the passages under review; but, lest it might be thought that tne views 
of Benson and Clarke are not in accordance with the general sentiment 
of learned commentators, we add a few other authorities. 

Mr. Burkitt, in his notes on Acts xiv. 23, uses the following language: 
“Here we have two farther instances of the apostle’s care of these new- 
planted Churches; and the first was, to settle them in Church-order, 
ordaining elders in every Church to be the guides and teachers of the 
rest.” Here it appears, according to Burkitt, that, without a regular 
pastor ordained over each and every Church, the Churches could not 
be “settled in Church-order.” On Titus i. 5, Mr. Burkitt remarks as 
follows: “To ‘ordain elders in every city, such as might govern, and 
teach, and administer to God in holy things; wherever a Church is 
planted, there is an absolute necessity of a settled ministry.” 

Dr. Macknight gives it as his opinion, in his comment cn Titus i. 5, 
that “elders were to be ordained in every city where the ccnverts were 
4o numerous as to form a Church.” 


910 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


Thomas Scott, in his comment on Acts xiv. 23, says: “ These eldera 
were their stated pastors, who presided in the worship of Gud, and 
preached his word unto them.” 

We will not stay longer to quote from commentaries on the subject 
before us. The testimony given from Clarke and Benson, especially as 
we find the highest authorities in the Episcopalian and Presbyterian 
ranks coinciding with them in opinion, is sufficient to satisfy us that, 
without the utmost violence to the text, no other construction than the 
one we have presented can be given to the passages. Indeed, we may 
say, fearless of successful contradiction, that the great mass of learned 
commentators agree with Clarke and Benson in asserting that over all 
the apostolic Churches regular ruling pastors were placed ; and, till such 
was the case, they were not considered “ properly organized.” 

Therefore we may conclude that the New Testament history suffi- 
ciently demonstrates the following points: 

1. That a regularly ordained ministry is established. 

9. That this ministry comprises, first, an itinerant evangelistic depart- 
ment, for the spreading of the gospel and the getting up and organizing 
of new Churches; and, secondly, a regular pastorate relation, for taking 
care of the Churches organized. 

We will next call attention to the confirmatory evidence on this sub- 
ject furnished by the history of the Church in succeeding ages. 

Aside from the Acts of the Apostles, the earliest Church-history which 
has come down to us is that of Eusebius. This author wrote in the 
fourth century, and brings down the history of the Church to the 
Council of Nice, which took place in the year 325, He is the only 
author who wrote a history of the Church during the centuries imme- 
diately succeeding the apostles, whose writings have reached us; conse- 
quently all subsequent writers have been mainly dependent on him for 
their account of the Church during that period. Eusebius is the more 
valuable as a Church-historian because he quotes extensively from the 
writings of others, furnishing us in this way with the only extracts now 
extant from the works of various individuals in reference to the Church 
in those primitive times. He says himself that he had “collected the 
materials that had been scattered by his predecessors, and culled, as 
from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts from ancient 
authors.” 

On the points to which we have directed our present inquiry, Eusebius 
is very clear and satisfactory. He gives, in regular and consecutive 
order, the names of the bishops of a number of the principal Churches, 
even from the apostles themselves down to his day, and often specifies 


Ch. viti.} THE MINISTRY—DIFFERENT ORDERS. 911 


the number of years they respectively served. Among the principal 
Churches concerning which he is thus specific, may be mentioned that 
of Rome, of Alexandria, of Ephesus, of Antioch, of Jerusalem, and of 
Corinth. He proceeds to give an account of the course pursued by 
many who, after the apostolic age, prosecuted the work of “evangel- 
ists,” and who, in his own words, “after laying the foundation of the 
faith in foreign parts, as the particular object of their mission, and after 
appointing others as shepherds of the flocks, and committing to these 
the care of those that had been recently introduced, went again to other 
regions and nations, with the grace and codperation of God.” 

Thus it appears that such as acted the part of missionaries or evan- 
gelists, after the apostles’ day, still adhered to the same plan—they 
placed pastors over all the organized Churches. We believe it is ad- 
mitted oy all Christian writers of eminence on Church-polity that, from 
the time the apostles first “ordained elders in the Churches” down the 
stream of history for the space of three hundred years, there never was 
a Christian Church, properly organized, over which a regular pastor or 
pastors did not preside. We may, with safety, go even further, and 
affirm that, while there is satisfactory evidence to prove that the gen- 
eral practice, both in the apostolic and succeeding ages, was to place 
regular ruling pastors over all the organized Churches, there is no evi- 
dence to show that there existed a solitary éxception to the rule for the 
space of fifteen hundred years. 

But what are we to infer from these facts? First. That the Churches 
were not left to their own government and control, on the plan of Inde- 
pendency. Secondly. That neither the settled pastorate principle nor the 
itinerancy should be adopted, to the exclusion of the other, but that the 
two should be blended. 

One plan by which the elements of these two systems may be advan- 
tageously united is that of a regular itinerancy, giving to each Church 
a settled pastorate over it for a limited time, yet subject to a systematic 
and periodical change. Such is the general economy of Methodism. 
This system, while it comprehends more extensively than can be done 
by most Church-organizations the itinerant or evangelistic department, 
at the same time embraces, to a considerable extent, the settled pastor- 
ate relation; thus happily combining the two great gospel elements. It 
is true, this system, as a general rule, does not recognize a pastorate 
relation settled for life; but it is none the less really a settled or fixed 
relation, because the period of its unconditional continuance may be 
limited. A Church may have a pastorate regularly settled over it for 
twenty years, although the incumbent of the office may be changed a 


912 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 1. 


dozen times. In this sense the pastorate over a Methodist Church never 
dies. The moment the pastoral jurisdiction of one minister ceases, that 
of another begins; so that the Church has always a pastor, and the 
pastor always a Church. 

It must be admitted that the Methodist organization exhibits the 
evangelistic or missionary feature of the apostolic plan more fully and 
successfully than can be done by any other system known since the 
days of Timothy and Titus; and it may truly be doubted whether any 
other platform of organization approximates so nearly to the apostolic 
plan in keeping all the Churches regularly supplied with pastors. 
Among those Churches having no regular and systematic evangelistic 
or itinerant department, but organized with special reference to a settled 
pastorate relation, how many hundreds of them are left much of the 
time without pastors, and how many pastors without Churches! The 
essence of the pastorate relation depends less upon the question, whether 
it is a life-time or a periodical arrangement, than upon the fact as to the 
constancy and regularity of the supply of a pastor or pastors for each 
Church, and a Church or field of operation for each minister. If this 
be the essence of the apostolic plan, then it will follow that this plan is 
nowhere more fully and successfully realized than in connection with 
the Methodist organization. 

The fact that regular pastors, exercising the power of government 
and control, were placed over all the apostolic Churches, is sufficient 
evidence that the government of the Churches was not modeled by the 
apostles either after the Congregational or the Presbyterian form. The 
power of government was neither vested in each congregation collect- 
ively, nor yet in the pastor and his lay elders; but in the ordained min- 
isterial elders, 

To what extent these ministerial elders, in whom we have shown the 
apostles deposited the power of jurisdiction and control over the 
Churches, may engage and admit the assistance and codperation of the 
laity in the management of ecclesiastical affairs, is a question depending 
much upon considerations of expediency. We may safely conclude 
that such method should he pursued as will best secure the zealous and 
efficient aid and influence of the whole Church, and, at the same time, 
retain in the hands of the ordained ministry that highest power of 
government and control over the kingdom of Jesus Christ with which 
the Head of the Church has intrusted them. 

Provided the two apostolical elements be retained and efficiently 
carried out, so as to secure a regular pastorate over the organized 
Yhurches, and an ample degree of evangelistic influence be sent abroad 


Ch. vii.) THE MINISTRY—DIFFERENT ORDERS. 918 


br the spread of the gospel—provided these two grand objects be se- 
tured, it may well be left to the dictates of expediency to determine 
bow transient or how permanent shall be the connection between the 
individual pastor and the flock of his charge. Whether that connec- 
tion be continued for life, for a long period, or for a shorter period, to 
be determined by a presbytery, a conference, or a recognized episcopacy, 
or whether it be limited by a definite, agreed period, these are questions 
not settled by the New Testament record ; and, consequently, each Chris- 
tian organization may adopt such plan on the subject as they judge to 
be the best adapted to secure the grand objects of the gospel. 


QUESTIONS ON CITAPTER VIII. 


Question 1. What is named as one of | 5. What two important elements on 


the prominent features connected this subject are exhibited in the 
with the organization of the Chris- New Testament? 
tian Church? 6. What Scripture testimony is adduced 

2. What Scripture authority is given showing that a regular pastorate 
showing the origin and ordination was placed over the organizea 
of the Christian ministry? Churches ? 

3. What may be inferred from the fact |". What two important positions are 
that none but regularly authorized said to be demonstrated on this 
persons exercised the functicns of subject by the New Testament hia 
the ministerial cffice? tory? 

4. What diversity of sentiment has pre- ; 8. What confirmatory evidence is given 
vailed in regard to the connec- from Church-history ? 
tion between the ministry and the 9. What conclusive inferences are mae 
Churches ? from the facts presented? 


58 


914 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. {[P.iv. B 1 


CHAPTER 1X. 


THE CLAIMS OF INDEPENDENCY EXAMINED. 


It is assumed by the advocates of Independency in Church-goveen- 
ment— 

1, That the laity composing a Church have the power of disciph.e 
including the right to receive and exclude members. 

2. That they have the right of electing their own pastors. 

I. We will examine the proof of the position, that the laity ave 
the power of discipline, and the right of receiving and excluding mem- 
bers. 

1. The first proof’ of this position offered by the advocates of Inde- 
pendency, is founded upon the following scripture: 

“Moreover, if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him 
his fault between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother; but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee 
Gue or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word 
may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto 
tne Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee 
as a heathen man and a publican.” Matt. xviii. 15-17. 

It is admitted on all hands, that our Lord did not set up and organ- 
ize the Christian Church by his personal agency, but that he committed 
this work to his inspired apostles; hence the Christian Church dates its 
origin from the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were “endued with 
power from on high.” Bearing in mind this admitted fact, it will read- 
ily be perceived how futile must be the attempt to prove, by the scrip- 
ture adduced, that the Church-government is vested in the laity. 

(1) The attempt is made to found an argument for Independency in 
the government of the Christian Church upon a regulation made, not 
in reference to that Church, but to a state of things previous to its 
existence. As the only Church or congregation of worshipers with 
which these disciples were now connected was that of the Jewish tem 
ple or synagogue, it was to that Church, and not to the Christian 
Church that the Saviour referred. Surely it cannot be presumed that 


? 


Ch. ix.} THE CLAIMS OF INDEPENDENCY EXAMINED. 918 


he undertook to innovate upon the Jewish polity in reference to the 
synagogue service! And it is well known that these synagogues were 
governed by a select court of rulers, or elders, and not by the whole 
congregation on the principles of Independency. To attempt thus, as 
has been done, to prove Independency by this instruction of our Lord, 
given before the Christian Church had an existence, and having nc 
reference whatever to its polity, is palpably illogical. As well might 
we plead that when our Saviour sent forth his apostles, saying, “ Pro- 
yide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass, in your purses; nor scrip for 
your journey, neither two coats”—as well might we contend that our 
Lord was thus prescribing the law of the Church, regulating the outfit 
of missionaries for all subsequent ages. 

(2) The argument here postulated for Independency fails, because it 
substitutes a general direction relating to individual behavior for an 
ecclesiastical law for the government of the Christian Church. The 
scripture under review contains a salutary precept for regulating the 
deportment of the disciples in their association with each other and with 
their Jewish brethren, but not one word as to the polity of the Chris- 
tian Church, which was not to be organized till after Pentecost. There 
is no intimation here given as to the form according to which the Chris- 
tian Church should proceed in the trial and expulsion of an unruly 
member. Shall it be done through the medium of appropriate officers? 
and, if so, how are they to be chosen? and by what form inducted int 
office? by what laws is the case to be tried? and who shall interpret 
those laws? Or is the whole Church, as a collective body, to be prose- 
cutor, advocate, judge, jury, and every thing else? Here we find not 
one word in reference to any of these important particulars; and the 
reason is obvious. Our Lord was not prescribing a code of laws or 
form of government for the Christian organization which the apostles 
were to erect after his departure. He was simply instructing his disci- 
ples in reference to their behavior in their intercourse and fellowship 
with each other as individuals. So far as his instructions embodied 
principles of behavior concerning Christian fellowship, they would ap- 
ply, of course, after the organization of the gospel Church as well as 
before; but by no legitimate mode of interpretation can they shed any 
light as to the form of ecclesiastical polity. 

“If thy brother trespass against thee,” said our Saviour. Hence it 
is a private, personal offense, to which he refers, therefore take private 
means to reclaim him; but if these fail, “ then tell it unto the Church” 
—that is, inform the Church through her rulers. or surely our Saviour 
would not encourage his disciples to ignore or set at naught the estaly 


916 LLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.1 


lished urder of the synagogue; on the contrary, he et.couraged submis 
sion to existing authorities, saying, “The scribes and Pharisees sit in 
Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe 
and do.” Matt. xxiii. 2,3. But when the Church has thus, through 
her rulers, been informed of the sin of the offender, there is not one 
word here as to the form of the investigation. Was it before the whole 
Church, or before their stated rulers? On this question our Saviour is 
silent. But that the matter was adjudicated, not by the whole Church, 
but by the “rulers of the synagogue,” cannot be denied. 

Our Saviour proceeds: “If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be 
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican” —that is, after the Church 
has finished its proceedings, whatever they may have been, and failed 
to reclaim the offender, withdraw, as individual Christians, your fellow- 
ship from him. 

2. The effort has also been made to prove that the power of disci- 
pline, with the right to receive and exclude members, is vested in the 
laity, by appealing to the testimony of St. Paul. The following pas- 
sages have been relied on for this purpose: 

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh 
disorderly.” 2 Thess. iii. 6. “Mark them which cause divisions and 
offenses, contrary to doctrines which ye have learned, and avoid them.” 
Rom. xvi. 17. 

These passages only instruct Christians in reference to their deport: 
ment, as individuals, toward disorderly members—that is, they are ad- 
monished to avoid associating with disorderly persons; to shun their 
society ; to come not under their influence; to be not contaminated by 
their example; to give them no countenance; not to “bid them God 
speed” in their sinful course. 

3. Again: To show that the power of discipline is in the laity, strong 
reliance has been placed on the following text: 

“Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new Jump.” 
1 Cor. vy. 7. 

If, by “ purging out the old leaven,” the apostle means that the pes 
tiferous member is to be expelled, he only expresses the general truth, 
that discipline should be so maintained as to preserve the body of the 
Church in a sound and healthy condition, free from the contagious in- 
fluence of immorality; but as to the form or mode of procedure in the 
carrying out of that discipline, he utters not a word. The Church at 
Corinth, at that time, was composed of private members, together with 
ministers, officers, and rulers. Already parties had ranged themselves 


Ch. ix.] THE CLAIMS OF INDEPENDENCY EXAMINED. 917 


wader their respective leaders, clearly showing the existence of inequal- 
ity among the people in the management of Church affairs. In this 
same Epistle, the apostle mentions the fact that these officers, rulers, or 
leaders, existed among them by divine appointment. His words are: 
“God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, 
thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, gov- 
ernments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Cor. xii. 28. 

Now, we demand, what right have we to infer that the apostle in- 
tended by the general exhortation to the Corinthians, “ Purge out the 
old leaven,” to establish a platform of Independency in Church-goyern 
ment? In this same letter he refers to an existing order of government, 
With officers of various grades and powers, and that under the appoint- 
ment of God. These officers originated, not in the popular election of 
the Church, for the apostle declares, “God hath set some in the Church,” 
referring the arrangemeyt, not to voluntary Church-action, but to 
divine control. The apostle then proceeds in his enumeration expressly 
to mention “ governments,” clearly implying that the power of govern- 
ment had been placed in individuals, and was not deposited in the col- 
lective body according to Independency. 

From the exhortation, “ Purge out the old leaven,”’ we can see no 
more ground for inferring Independency than any other form of Church- 
government. The exhortation was addressed to the ministers and off- 
cers of the Corinthian Church as much as to the laity. It only enjoins 
upon ail—upon ministers, officers, and private members—the duty of 
maintaining the purity of the Church by wholesome discipline; but in 
what form that discipline is to be administered—whether according to 
Independency, Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, or any other type of 
ecclesiastical rule—we must go elsewhere to learn. 

II. The next question to be considered is, THE APPOINTMENT OF PAS- 
rORS TO THE CHURCHES. 

Independency claims that each particular Church has the right to elect 
its own pastor. 

In attempting to sustain this position, we might reasonably infer, 
judging a priori, that the abettors of Independency would either adduce 
a plain example, showing that such was the practice of the Christian 
Church under the apostolic administration, or that they would show an 
express precept to that effect. We cannot see how any thing short of 
one or the other of these methods of proof can avail for the purpose in 
hand; but we think it will appear in the sequel that thev have not 
attempted either. 

1, The first resort of Independency to prove the right of each Chureb 


918 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Pine BI 


to elect its own pastor, is to what is said in the first chapter of The Acts 
in reference to the appointment of Matthias to fill the vacancy in the 
apostolate caused by the apostasy of Ju‘las. 

The total irrelevancy of the case here adduced to the point in hand, 
may be seen at a glance. Observe, the point to be proved is, that the 
body of members composing any Christian Church have the right to 
choose their own pastor. That this position cannot be established by 
reference to the case of Matthias, will appear from the following facts. 

(1) Matthias was not chosen as pastor of a Christian Church, 

(2) He was not chosen by the members constituting a particular Chris- 
tian Church. 

(3) He was not elected by the votes of the disciples present, but by lot, 
after prayer for the divine direction. 

(4) In that prayer, the disciples repudiated the position that the pre- 
rogative of choosing in the case was vested in them. They prayed, say- 
ing, “Show whether of these two thou hast chosen”—thus proving that 
they recognized no right of choice as existing in them. 

(5) This appointment of Matthias transpired, not only previous to 
the organization of the Christian Church, but before the apostles had 
been “ endued with power from on high” for the execution of that work. 
Of course it can prove nothing as to the method of appointing the pas- 
tors of Christian Churches. 

(6) There is no evidence that Matthias ever did serve as the pastor of a 
particular Christian Church. 

(7) The disciples, in the case in hand, did not act of their own ae- 
cord, but under the instruction of Peter, simply yielding to his control. 

With these seven facts before us, no one of which can be disputed, 
and the admission of any one of which demonstrates the irrelevancy of 
the case of Matthias as proof of the point in question, we may be al- 
lowed to dismiss this first argument to establish the right of the laity to 
choose their own pastor. The, attempt to found Independency upon the 
case of Matthias is a palpable failure. 

2. Next. The attempt is made to prove the right of each Church to 
select its own pastor from the choosing of the “seven deacons,” as re- 
corded in the sixth chapter of The Acts. 

This case comes nearer being applicable to the point in hand than the 
former, in one particular, and in that on/y— that is, it is not a. ease 
occurring anterior to the organization of the Christian Church. But 
that it as signally fails to prove that each Church has the right to choose 
its own pastor, is easily shown. 

In addition to the remarks made on this subject in a preceding chap» 


Ch. ix.) THE CLAIMS OF INDEPENDENCY EXAMINED. 916 


ter, we think it only necessary to fix the attention upon the following 
particulars ; 

(1) The disciples only did as they were commanded by the apostles. 
They did not proceed as though they considered themselves vested with 
the prerogative of doing as they pleased in the matter. 

(2) The right of appointment was evidently not in the disciples, nor 
did they attempt to exercise it. It existed in and was exercised by the 
aposiles. 

(3) But, after all, what is fatal to the case as proof of the point in 
hand—these deacons were not appointed as pastors of Churches. 

Wonderful logic! The argument of Independency is this: the apos- 
tles, whose right it was to “ordain elders in every city,” and to organize 
all the Churches, giving to each Church the requisite officers, directed 
the Church at Jerusalem to select seven men, having specific qualifica- 
tions, to superintend the collection and disbursement of the poor-fund 
of the Church; therefore each Christian Church everywhere has the right 
to choose its own pastor ! 

3. But to prove the position in question, Independency has resorted to 
the celebrated council at Jerusalem, whose history we have in the fif- 
teenth chapter of The Acts. 

Referring to what we have already said upon this subject in a former 
chapter, as in itself ample proof that nothing can be derived from this 
source in support of Independency, we need here add but little. 

The facts, so far as they bear on the case, are briefly these: The 
Church at Antioch appealed to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem for 
the settlement of a question relating to Church-communion: the apos- 
tles and elders met in council, and, under the guidance of the Holy 
Ghost, settled the question; but, because the laity were present and 
signified their approval—were “ pleased” with the conclusion arrived at 
—therefore it is inferred that the laity, in every Christian Church, have 
the right to choose their own pastor. 

The fallacy of the argument which would prove the point in hand, 
by the case referred to, may easily be shown. 

(1) The question was not settled by “the whole Church,” but by the 
“apostles and elders.” “The whole Church” only assented to it, or 
were “pleased” with it. 

(2) If the appeal had been made to “the whole Church,” and “the 
whole Church” had settled the question in Church-capacity on the Con- 
gregational plan, and sent the Epistle officially as their Church-action. 
it could not avail the weight of a feather as a proof of the point in hand 
It had no relation whatever to the question of selecting Church-pastors 


920 RLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iv. B.1 


The argument for Independency, as founded on the action of this 
council, in logical form, is in substance as follows: 

“The whole Church” at Jerusalem was once consulted in reference te 
one matter, therefore “the whole Church” in every place has the right 
to decide another matter, of an entirely different nature. Because “ the 
whole Church” at Jerusalem approved or sanctioned the decision of the 
apostles and elders, that circumcision is not an essential prerequisite to 
communion, therefore every Church in every place, independently of 
“apostles and elders,” may select its own pastor. We consider the 
reasoning that would find a ground for Independency in the case betore 
us, too inconsequential to justify any farther notice. 

4. The Christian Churches sometimes gave letters of commendation 
as an introductory passport to certain ministers when going among 
strangers. 

This fact has been seized upon as proof that those Churches had _ the 
right to elect their own pastors. If the advocates of Independency can 
see any force in the argument they here predicate, we must say they can 
see what, to our perception, is undiscernible. Why these /etters might 
not be as useful to a minister in connection with one as another mode of 
Church-government, 1s quite beyond our ken. If there could be any 
difference in the value of such detters, it would be likely to be in favor 
of those ministers who had their appointment from some other source 
than the collective body of the Church. If thetr appointment, as min- 
isters, is from “the whole Church,” they already possess all the indorse- 
ment the Church is able to impart; but if their appointment is from a 
bishop, a presbytery, a council, or a conference, a letter from a Church 
acquainted with their character and deportment may, under some cir- 
cnmstances, be very useful and satisfactory. 

5. An effort has been made to found an argument on this question 
upon the fact that Christians are exhorted to “try the spirits,” and to 
watch against the wiles of false prophets and false teachers. 

Such characters they are exhorted to detect, to shun their influence, 
and not to “bid then Godspeed.” This is all wholesome advice, and it 
seems to us just as necessary under one method of inducting ministers 
into office as another. Why can such advice be more needed or useful 
when each Church selects its own pastor than when they are otherwise 
supplied? Is it to be supposed that ministers elected by their respective 
Churches are less trustworthy or more to be suspected on that account ? 
By whatever plan ministers may be appointed, unworthy persons cannot 
be kept from sometimes intruding into sacred places; and, while this is 
tae case, it will continue to be the duty of all—both ministers and laity 


wh, ix.] THE CLAIMS OF INDEPENDENCY EXAMINED. 921 


—to “try the spirits,” and to judge the tree by its fruit. But how the 
fact that it is the duty of all Churches and of all Christians to guard 
against the seductive wiles of false teachers, and the baneful influence 
of false doctrine—how this fact can demonstrate that the right exists 
in each Church to select its own pastor, is beyond our capacity to per- 
ceive. Mark, the duty of thus “trying the spirits,” and of not receiv- 
ing a false teacher “into our house,” or “ bidding him Godspeed,” is not 
enjoined upon Churches, as such, more than upon individuals, as such. 
If, then, it proves that each Church has the right to select its own pas- 
tor, it must also prove that each individual possesses that right; anc 
this would subvert all Church-organization, and lead directly to anarchy 
and confusion. To what absurd consequences must we be led, when we 
plant ourselves upon an unsound position ! 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER IX. 


Question 1. What two positions of In- | 5. What is the first argument founded 


dependency are here considered ? upon, and how is it answered? 

2. What is the first proof of the first | 6. Upon what is the second argument 
position, and how is it shown to be founded, and how is it answered ? 
insufficient ? 7. The third argument, and how ap- 

3. Upon what other scriptures are argu- swered ? 
ments founded for this position, |8. What is the fourth argument, and 
and liow are they answered ? how answered? 


t. What is the second position of Inde-| 9. What is the fifth arg ment, and how 
pendency here discvased ? is it answered ? 


y22 KLFMENTS OF DIVINITY, Re re 


CHAPTER xX, 


WRIT] EN CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. 


Ir has been the practice of the Christian Church in all ages to adopt 
written symbols, creeds, forms of disci pline, or confessions of faith, set 
ting forth an outline of the belief and practice of her communicants. 
There have not been wanting, however, especially in modern times, per- 
sons, calling themselves Christians, who have repudiated and denounced 
all such written formulas as unauthorized, sinful, and pernicious. A 
brief chapter on this subject is rendered necessary, more by the zeal 
and pertinacity with which creeds and confessions of faith have been 
opposed than by any conviction that the arguments by which that op- 
position has been maintained possess in themselves much force, or even 
plausibility. 

We are persuaded that the prejudice against creeds, in the abstract, 
has generally arisen from a superficial examination of the subject and 
an erroneous conception of the nature and design of creeds. This prej- 
udice has no doubt been greatly aggravated by the abuse of creeds, of 
which the history of the Church furnishes us some painful examples 
and illustrations. But as it is admitted that the best things in the 
world may be abused or perverted, and that the abuse can furnish no 
good reason against the proper use of any thing whatever, it necessarily 
follows that it is palpably illogical to argue against the use of creeds 
from their abuse. 

For an uninspired man or set of men to compose a creed, and at- 
tempt to enforce it upon others, whether it accords with their belief as 
to the teachings of the word of God or not, is certainly a usurpation. 
This would be “lording it over God’s heritage,” which the Bible con- 
demns. It would bea renunciation of that great and hallowed principle 
—that “the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants.” 
[t would be an unwarranted and flagrant intrusion upon that liberty of 
conscience everywhere recognized in Scripture. 

I. The propriety and urtiiry of Church-creeds, disciplines, or con- 
fessions of faith. may be shown from the following considerations: 


Ch. x.] CREBDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 923 


1, It will not be disputed that the New Testament guarantees to every 
Christian the right, and enjoins upon him the duty, of “searching the 
Scriptures,’ and judging for himself what they teach. 

If this proposition” be true, it necessarily follows that every one pos: 
sesses also the right to communicate to others an abstract or summary 
of his belief in reference to what the Scriptures teach; and if he may 
make such communication at all, he may print it in a book and spread 
it before the world, so that all men may see and know the “reason 
of the hope that is in him.” The book thus published is the author’s 
creed, or an outline of his belief; and that he had the right thus to 
embody and set forth his faith no one can dispute, provided only that 
he do not attempt to enforce it upon others. 

Now, if an individual Christian may thus adopt, write out, and pub- 
lish his own creed, why not a Church or an association of Christians? 
And if they may thus adopt and publish their creed, what harm can 
there be in subscribing to such a creed, and voluntarily engaging to 
conform to and support the same? Were it the fact tnat an individual 
Christian, or a denomination of Christians, were endeavoring to coerce 
subscription to articles of faith, or obedience to a form of discipline, 
upon persons who had not voluntarily adopted those articles, and prom- 
ised conformity to those rules of discipline, the case would be mate- 
rially altered. Such a procedure would be spiritual tyranny of the 
most despicable character. But where, we ask, is this the ease? where 
has it ever been the case among Protestants? In all these organizations 
none are required to become members, except on the voluntary princi- 
ple. If we frame an outline of our faith and rules of discipline, all of 
which we believe to be “taught of God, even in his written word,” and 
if these articles and rules are enforced upon none but such as of their 
own free will and accord adopt them, where is any infringement of 
liberty of conscience? where is any element of spiritual tyranny? 
While the voluntary principle, both in uniting with and withdrawing 
from the Church, is sacredly preserved, neither liberty of conscience 
can be trampled down, nor the reign of spiritual despotism inaugu- 
rated; hence we think it clear that all Christians and all Churches are 
fully authorized to embody their creed or discipline in a book, thus ex- 
hibiting an outline-draft of those fundamental principles which they 
believe to be taught in God’s word. 

2. Next, it may easily be shown that there must be an agreement 
among those united in Church-assoeiation,as to the fundamentals of 
faith, and the~genetal principles and form of discipline, or Christiar 
union, harmony, and fellowship, and the great ends of Church organi 


924 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. IP. iv. B.1 


zation, cannot be secured. Without this agreement, how can the reg 
ular and orderly public worship of God be maintained? how can the 
word of God and the sacraments and discipline of the Church be duly 
and harmoniously administered ? 

(1) A creed or discipline-is necessary for the orderly conducting of 
re public worship of God. 

It is a common-sense position that a creed, or formula of discipline, 
may be just as authoritative and binding, and consequently as potent 
for good or evil, when only understood and orally sanctioned, as when 
written; therefore it would be entirely yielding the point in dispute 
for the no-creed party to say: “We will adopt no written creed, but we 
will in some way come to a verbal understanding as to the essential arti- 
cles of faith and rules of order.” Is it not as plain as any thing eas 
be that the essential element of a creed consists not in the form or 
shape in which it is expressed, but in its subject-matter or substance ? 
If you promise to pay your friend a given amount, is that promise any 
the less real or binding because it was not written, but only verbal? 
Upon the same principle, is not a creed or rule as really such, and as 
authoritative, when it has been explained and agreed to, as though writ- 
tex down and formally adopted? The unlawfulness of the creed, if 
any such quality there be, consists not in the fact that it has been writ- 
ten, but that it has been expressed in uninspired language, and adopted. 
Surely no sane person could even dream that there is any spiritual 
virus in the mere ink, paper, or materials of a book, rendering that 
sinful and pernicious, if reduced to a written form, which would be per- 
fectly right and harmless if only uttered by the voice, and verbally 
adopted? If it be unlawful to write an article of faith or a rule of 
discipline in a book, and for a Church to adopt it in that form, how 
can it be lawful for the same Church to adopt the same article and 
rule when verbally expressed? The position that there is so essential 
a difference between the written and verbal form of expressing the same 
thing, that the one is right while the other is sinful, is too puerile to be 
seriously discussed. Hence it follows that the opposers of all human 
creeds, to render their practice consistent with their theory, must be 
able to conduct the public worship of God, and all the services, ordi- 
nances, and discipline of the Church, in a decent, orderly, and edifying 
manner, independent of any preiigreement whatever on the subject. 

Now, let us contemplate how great would be the confusion resulting 
from an attempt practically to carry out this principle. In the same 
congregation, where there is no predrrangement or understanding tend- 
ing to a different result, we may suppose persons collected together, rep 


Ch. x.] CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 925 


resentiny every shade of belief among the diversified orders throughe 
out the Christian world. 

Public worship is to be attended to; but how shall it be conducted ? 
Some might be in favor of a liturgy, while others would prefer the ex- 
temporaneous plan. How is the matter to be settled, when each is per- 
suaded that he gets his views from the Bible? It is obvious there must 
be a general agreement on the question before they can proceed harmo- 
niously ; but by whatever form or process this agreement is reached— 
whether by vote of the whole society or otherwise —that agreement, so 
far as it extends, is virtually the adoption of a creed. 

If we come to the question of Church-music, there might be. still 
greater diversity of sentiment. Some might think the deep toned or- 
gan an essential appendage to this service; others might oppose this, 
but contend for a well-trained choir; while others might prefer only 
the human voice, but strenuously object to the singing of any thing 
but Rouse’s version of the Psalms; others would plead for congrega- 
tional singing, including hymns and spiritual songs, conscientiously 
opposing all such appurtenances as instrumental music or choir-sing- 
ing, as not authorized by the New Testament; but, last. of all, some, 
brought up under Quaker influence, might oppose all music but what 
is silent, urging the apostolic precept, “ Make melody in your heart to 
the Lord.” How, we ask, is all this discord to be harmonized? Each 
professes to be guided by the Scriptures. There must, of course, be 
some agreement on the subject, but however that may be brought about, 
it will be in effect the adoption of a creed. 


Some might contend that the Christian ministry is not a distinct 
order, but that the right-to preach and to administer the sacraments 
pertains as much to one person as to another, and that no appointment 
or consecration, in any form, is requisite; others might think that these 
prerogatives and duties pertain to particular persons selected and ap- 
pointed by vote of the Church without any formal ordination ; while 
others might hold that no man ought to administer the sacraments 
until he has been ordained by “the laying on of the hands of the pres- 
bytery ;” and others still might contend that ordination by a hishop, 
in a regular line of succession from the apostles, is essential to a valid 
ministry and valid sacraments. 

Now, as all these conflicting sentiments are strenuously maintained 
by persons of different denominations, all professing to be governed by 
the New Testament, how are these questions to be regulated without 


926 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [PaivsBae 


some agreed plan to settle the interpretation of the Scriptures in refer. 
ence to the points in hand? And if the matter be thus settled, would 
hot that settlement be the adoption of a creed? 

If it be said that when any such matter comes before ‘the Church, 
they will decide it by vote—if this position be taken, then we reply, 
What if some object to that mode of decision as not in accordance with 
the New Testament? Then if a vote be proposed to settle that dispute, 
it too might be objected to on a similar ground; and so on they might 
proceed in an endless series of propositions to vote, and objections. 

But if the ground be taken that when once it has been decided by vote 
what the New Testament does teach on a given point, then it is settled, 
and ought not to be disturbed by farther agitation, and that would be 
the same as the adoption of a creed or rule of discipline; and it might 
as well be written in a book, and preserved in permanent form, subject 
to the examination of all, as to be recorded by the secretary in the 
Minutes of Church-proceedings. 

If it be said that any such decision is only applicable to the case 
then in hand, and is no rule for the control of future action, then it 
follows that it is a ereed or rule of human device and adoption. It is 
none the less a creed or rule for the time being, and in application to 
the case in hand, because it is limited to that particular time and case. 
All that can be gained by this maneuvering is, that, instead of having 
one established creed or rule alike applicable to all similar cases, a new 
creed or rule must be adopted in every new case and by every new 
vote. 

The truth is, there must be agreement as to the order and method of 
proceeding, or, in other words, as to what are the teachings of the New 
Testament on the subject, or there can be no order or government what: 
ever. If government exists, it must be administered. If it be admin- 
istered, it must be administered by some person or persons, according 
to some rule and in some form; and those administrators must be rec- 
ognized by the parties governed as the law-interpreting and the law-ad- 
ministering power, according to the New Testament; and whenever, 
and by whatever form, whether written or oral, that recognition is 
made, a creed or Church-rule, whether we admit it or not, is adopted. 
And who cannot see that it is better to have an established rule for all 
similar cases, than to adopt a new rule, or be compelled to reidopt an 
old one with every new case? 

(8) Again, look-at- the inconvenience and confusion-that_must. ensue 
from the no-ereed principle; were the attempt made to carry it out ip 
reference to the ordinances. 


Ch. x.| CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 927 


Suppose there were several applicants knocking at the door for bap- 
tism and admission for Church-membership. Each has examined the 
New Testament for himself, but one is satisfied that the ordinance 
should be administered by pouring, another can only be satsified with 
sprinkling, another is sure there is no baptism but immersion, another 
still deems all wrong but himself—he reads, and understands his New 
Testament to teach that he must be dipped three times, first “in the 
name of the Father,” then “in the name of the Son,” and then “in the 
name of the Holy Ghost.” 

Now, how is this matter to be settled? It is a case of importance 
and one too that, again and again, has come up in the history of the 
no-creed party. We reply, it cannot be settled at all, except by a re- 
nunciation of the principles of that party. The two great principles 
of which they boast are: first, “no human creed ;” secondly, “liberty of 
conscience to all.” How beautifully are these hallowed principles ex- 
hibited in their dealings with these candidates for baptism and Church- 
membership! Do they admit them to baptism in the form which alone 
can satisfy the conscience of the candidate? Far from it. The honest 
candidate, at the very threshold of this no-creed organization, learns 
that all he has heard about “the New Testament alone,” and “ every one 
his own interpreter,” was but empty parade. According to the history 
of this matter, there is no baptism allowed to the candidate, unless he 
will be immersed. ‘he poor applicant will see now that he has beer 
deceived. He finds that liberty of conscience means not his conscience, 
but that of the administrator—that is, he may read the New Testament, 
and be governed by it alone, till he seeks admission into a no-creed 
Church; but that very moment he meets a demonstration that the law 
with this party is not the New Testament alone (allowing each to be his 
own interpreter), but the New Testament as they, the no-creed party, in- 
terpret it. Here is a faithful picture of the practical workings of the 
system. 

The no-creed party generally adopt the principle that. there is no 
baptism but immersion ; hence they allow baptism in no other form, nor 
will they admit to fellowship, as a member in their communion, any 
unimmersed person. Though he be as pious as John Fletcher, and 
though John Wesley or John Knox may have baptized him, by pouring 
or sprinkling, on his profession of faith, still, as he has not been gov- 
erned by the New Testament as they, the no-creed party, see proper to 
interpret it, they say to him: “Stand back, ‘we are holier than thou.’ 
Measure yourself on our Procrustean bedstead, and be cut off o1 
stretched till you fit it, and then, but not till then, you can enter ow 


—\ 


928 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 3 


inclosure as a member.” If this be not the adoption, practically, of + 
creed or discipline of the most rigid, narrow, exclusive, and intoleram 
kind, let some one show us the reason why! 

(4) Once more, look at the difficulty that must arise in the operation 
of the no-creed principle in reference to-the-observance-of the Sabbath 
and of the Lord’s-supper. 
~ Some may contend for keeping the “Lord’s-day,” and others may 
argue that Saturday should be kept as the Sabbath. As to the “ Lord’s- 
supper,” some may advocate its administration on every “ Lord’s-day ;” 
some may think the New Testament leaves the question unsettled, and 
that once a month is sufficient; some may contend that it should always 
he attended to in the evening, after our Lord’s example; others may 
think, as there is no express precept, the morning may be a suitable 
time for the Supper. A great many such questions may arise, out of 
which confusion must result; according to the maxim, no rule but the 
New Testament. But if any agreement or understanding be arrived at 
that any rule is to be observed beyond what is written in the New Test- 
ament, that very moment the principle of the party is given up, and 
a creed is virtually adopted. It matters not whether one rule or five 
hundred he adopted, or whether they be written or unwritten, the princi- 
ple is the same, and, in spite of prejudice and of every thing else, the 
logical consequences must be the same. 

(5) Similar difficulties would arise upon the no-creed plan in all 
matters of .Church-discipline. This has~been~sorely-felt~ by*the-party. 
Instances are known to have occurred in which one Church has tried 
and expelled a minister, and a neighboring Church of the same no- 
ereed party has taken up and acted on the same case, and acquitted 
the accused. ‘Thus the minister stood on the records of one Church as 
expelled, and on the records of a neighboring Church of the same faith 
and order as a minister in good standing. Where there is no agreed 
basis of organization and government, or where (as St. Paul says it is 
with che heathen) all “are a law unto themselves,” such instances of 
disorder are the inevitable result. 

II. OpsJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

1. Those who oppose written creeds urge it against them that the 
adoption of them implies a lack of proper respect for and appreciation of 
the word of God, and is a substitution of human ereeds for the Seviptures. 

Ir. reply to this objection, we remark that it rests entirely on an 
erroneous basis. We know full well that the no-creed party have 
ostentatiously assumed to be, par excellence, the New Testament Church, 
*The book! the book!” they exclaim, “we are governed by ‘the book,’ 


Ub. X.) CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 2% 


while the sects are governed by human creeds, confessions of faith, and 
disciplines. While the sects are constituted on articles and rules of 
their own devising, we, the Christian Church, are coustituted on the 
New Testament alone.” 

One might infer from the assumptions thus exhibited that these op- 
ponents of creeds were the only class of Christians who protess to be 
governed by the Scriptures, or even to look upon the inspired volume 
as the great constitutional chart and authoritative standard of the 
Church, whether for faith or practice. But how different is this from 
the facts in the case! We know of no Protestant Church, claiming to 
be Christian, that does not revere the Bible as the only infallible stand- 
ard in reference to religion. 

One article of the Methodist creed declares: “The Holy Scriptures 
contain all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not 
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any 
man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought re- 
quisite or necessary to salvation.” This is but a sample of the profes- 
sion of all Protestant denominations in reference to their faith in the 
Scriptures. Is this substituting a human creed for the New Testament? 
Does this resemble exalting a creed, or human form of discipline, above 
the Scriptures? Rather, is it not, in the most emphatic language, rec 
ognizing God’s word as the supreme, the only, authoritative, and infalli 
ble standard, both in reference to faith and practice? 

The correct idea of a creed is, not that it is intended as a substitute 
for God’s book, or something superior, or even equal to it, but merely 
that it is a brief’ and plain abstract or summary of the most important 
doctrines and duties which the denomination setting it forth believe to 
be plainly taught in the Holy Scriptures. And it is because they be- 
lieve that these doctrines and duties are thus taught in God’s word that 
‘hey have subscribed to them, and promised adherence to the same 
while they continue members of that denomination, and their belief in 
those things remains unchanged. Thus any one uniting with that 
Church is not supposed to subscribe to its creed because he has united 
with the Church, but to have united with the Church because he already 
believes in its creed. Being a member does not cause his belief in the 
creed, but his belief in the creed causes him to become a member. 

He who reads the Bible, and thinks for himself, must have his belief 
in reference to the fundamental doctrines and important duties of Chris- 
tianity. If he keeps this belief to himself, it is his mental creed; if he 
tells it to others, it is his spoken creed; if he writes it ina book, it is 
his written creed. Does any suppose that because John Knox, Johy 

aa 


30 £LEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 1 


Wesley, Anarew Fuller, Alexander Campbell, and others, have each 
and all of them derived a creed, 2° best as they could, from God’s in- 
spired book, and published it to the world, that in that publication they 
have shown any disrespect to the Scriptures? or that they intended to 
substitute their printed belief for the Scriptures? or that they consid- 
ered the Bible an imperfect standard of faith, and had set forth a bet- 
ter? No one can dream a conclusion so silly. Why, then, should it 
be thought that because a denomination or collection of Christiane 
have done the very same thing — published in a book called their 
Creed what they honestly believe the Bible to teach—they should be 
charged with the sin of having attempted to substitute a code of their 
own devising for the Scriptures of infallible truth? In all the vast 
range of inconsequent reasoning, absurd conclusions, and groundless 
allegations, it would be difficult to find any thing to excel this attempt 
to fasten upon all written creeds the sin of aiming to be a substitute for 
the inspired Scriptures. 

Indeed, it requires but little reflection to perceive that the objection 
here urged against written creeds would apply with equal force against 
all preaching and the publication of all religious books. Why, it 
might just as well be asked, instead of all this preaching, and writing, 
and printing, do we not simply have the Scriptures read to the congre- 
gations, and no religious book but the Bible printed? for to preach on 
religion, except in Bible phrase, is attempting to substitute for the 
Scriptures something of our own. Who does not see the absurdity to 
which the position leads? 

2. But it is argued that the adoption of a creed is useless, unless it 
expresses Bible truth in @ better form than the inspired language has 
expressed it; and to presume that the creed can do this is to assume 
that the creed-makers are wiser than inspiration. 

One of the main designs of a written creed is to furnish all concerned 
with a brief outline of the belief of the denominations as to the teach- 
ings of the Bible. It is a fact which none will dispute that, in refer- 
ence to the teachings of the Scriptures on many important subjects, 
there is great diversity of sentiment among professed Christians; hence 
it follows that for a denomination simply to announce to the world thai 
they believe the Bible, would be, as to the point in hand, perfectly eva- 
sive and unsatisfactory. It would prove that they were neither atheists 
nor deists, but would scarcely do more. Whether they are Antinom. 
ians, Calvinists, Arminians, Pelagians, Socinians, Universalists, German 
Rationalists, or what, among all the conflicting beliefs of those who pro- 
fess to believe the Bible, may be their distinctive tenets, no one eould 


Ch. x.] CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 931 


tell. If all believers in the Bible explained it alike, the case would be 
different; but while the multitudinous classes of errorists all claim to 
take their faith from the Bible, something tangible, brief, clear, and 
unambiguous, such as a creed may supply, is indispensable to show to 
_ the world what the denomination understand the Bible to teach. 

This same no-creed party are just as ready as others to explain, in 
private conversation or public sermons, all the peculiar angles of their 
distinctive belief. Why not print it in a book, and call it their creed ? 
Or if the term creed is so offensive, then call it their sense of what the 
Scriptures teach? If merely explaining our belief in reference to what 
the Scriptures teach does not imply that we consider ourselves wiser 
than inspiration, neither should printing that explanation in a book, 
and calling it a creed, be so construed. 

Again, a written creed furnishes a much fairer ordeal for comparing 
our doctrines with Scripture, and thus testing their correctness, than 
can be had if we decline committing our views to writing. If we 
doubt the correctness of our faith, and fear it will not bear rigid criti- 
cism, and yet wish to keep it in countenance and out of the crucible 
as much as possible, it may be a successful policy to acknowledge no 
written creed. Words merely spoken are easily forgotten, liable to be 
misunderstood or misrepresented, and are not so readily brought toa 
strict and critical analysis; but when recorded in a book, they may be 
closely scanned and criticised, and, if erroneous or absurd, their imper- 
fections may be readily detected and exposed. 

Again, creeds may be necessary and useful, without implying that 
those who make them consider them superior to the Scriptures. The 
Bible is a very comprehensive hook, embracing an extensive range on 
a great variety of subjects. It embodies a fund of instruction on 
themes the most important and sublime, and in some instances pro- 
foundly mysterious. That portions of its contents are “hard to be un- 
derstood” is no disparagement, but rather adds dignity and grandeur 
to that inimitable volume. Of course it must be expected that men 
will differ in opinion in reference to the interpretation of the Scriptures, 

But there is much less diversity of sentiment in reference to the 
meaning of a creed. For illustration, the no-creed party have very 
generally adopted an article (whether ora/ or written is not material so 
far as principle is concerned) declaring, “ There is no baptism but. im- 
mersion.” Now, it is clear there can be no controversy as to the mean- 
ing of this article; but it is equally certain that there is controversy in 
reference to what the Scriptures teach on the subject. But does it 
therefore follow that the framers of that article have excelled. the 


932 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B 3 


inspired writers? The opponents of creeds surely will not answer this 
question in the affirmative, but, unless they do, they relinquish the 
principle of the objection under consideration. 

Again, the Bible only gives an outline of Church affairs, leaving 
much of the detail to be carried out by the Churches, as expediency 
and circumstances may dictate. These details of organization and 
government, though in themselves of comparatively minor importance, 
and though the particular form in which they are adopted is of small 
consequence, yet such is their nature that attention to them, in some 
shape, is indispensable to Church order and decorum. For illustration, 
the Bible enjoins administration of Church discipline and ordinances, 
but does not specify the precise form in which officers are to be selected 
for this work; if by the whole Church, whether by viva voce vote, by 
the lifting up of hands, or by ballot, is not declared; nor does the 
Bible determine the order of administering the Lord’s-supper, whether 
it shall be administered once a month, every week, or every day; nor 
is the precise order specified in which the public worship is to be con- 
ducted, whether reading the Scriptures, singing, prayer, and preach- 
ing, are all to be included as parts of the service, and, if so, in what 
order they are to succeed each other; these, and numerous other de 
tails, though not specifically settled in Scripture, are all necessary to 
be understood and agreed upon in a well ordered Church. But whether 
these details be settled by a mere verbal understanding preserved in the 
memory, or by vote of a Church-meeting recorded by a secretary, or 
by a record printed in a book and called a creed, these are mere cir- 
cumstances which cannot affect the principle involved. Whatever be 
the form which the proceeding may assume, it proves that there aro 
rules and regulations which Churches may, and must, adopt beyond 
what is written in the New Testament, without claiming a wisdom su- 
perior to that of the inspired apostles; and of course the objection is 
seen to be untenable and fallacious. 

Several other objections have been made against creeds, but they are 
all easily shown to be futile. 

3. Creeds are opposed on the ground that there is no express Bidle 
command authorizing them. If it be wrong to make, or to adopt, a 
creed because there is no express Bible command for it, then it is wrong 
to write and publish a religious book. The one is as destitute of an 
express command as the other. 

If it be said that the propriety of publishing religious books is estab- 
lished by all such general precepts as require us to do all the good we 
can—if the shift be made to this position, then the objection to creeds 


Ch. x.) CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 933 


founded on the absence of any express command is relinquished ; for 
if the right to publish a book can rest on inferential Bible basis, so 
may the authority for creeds. 

4, Creeds are opposed on the ground that they are productive of 
heresies and schisms. 

This has often been asserted, but never has been and never can be 
proved. That creeds should necessarily be productive of heresy or 
achism, is a position not only unsustained by evidence, but in itself un- 
philosophical. It confounds the distinction between cause and effect, 
or rather puts the one for the other. Creeds do not produce diversity 
of sentiment, but diversity of sentiment produces creeds, If all were 
agreed what the Scriptures teach, there would be no necessity for hu- 
man creeds; they could not originate. Heresies in the Church arose 
first, and. creeds were framed and adopted to detect, expose, and check 
those heresies; and that they have been efficient instruments in the ac- 
complishment of this work, the history of the Church has clearly 
evinced. 

Creeds were first called symbols, because they were viewed as signs, 
marks, or notes, of profession at baptism. The oldest of these is styled 
“The Apostles’ Creed,” because it was supposed to have originated at, 
or near, the apostles’ day, if not to be in part derived from them. This 
noble symbol of Christian faith, originating at so early a date, and 
sounding on through all succeeding ages from the lips of the millions 
of God’s people, has done more for the prevention and suppression of 
heresy and schism, and for the promotion of Christian unity and con- 
cord, than all that has ever been uttered and written against creeds. 
Indeed, the legitimate tendency of. creeds is directly the reverse of 
what the objection supposes. 

The Nicene Creed, in the fourth century, was framed for the suppres- 
sion of the Arian heresy. About the close of the same century an ad- 
dition was made to the creed, condemning the heresy of Macedonius, 
and affirming the divinity of the Holy Ghost; and at the Councils 
of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in the middle of the fifth century, by other 
ailditions to the creed, the heresies of Nestorius and Eutychius were 
condemned. At Nice, the creed was made to assert the proper divinity 
of Christ; at Constantinople, that of the Holy Ghost; at Ephesus, 
that the divine and the human natures in Christ are united in one. per- 
son; and at Chalcedon, that both natures remain distinct, and that 
the humanity is not lost or absorbed in the divinity. 

The creeds, thus settled at so early a day, have exerted a powerful 
influence in all subsequent ages in preserving the great body of the 


934 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [Prive Be w 


Church from schism and from heresy in relation to those fundamenta: 
doctrines, 

The great truth is, that those who object to creeds cannot sustain 
their objections without contradicting their own positions, and condemn- 
ing their own practices. Whether they admit it or not, they, in effect 
and reality, have adopted a human creed. That they are not governed 
by the New Testament, or by the Bible alone, may easily be demonstrated. 
True, they acknowledge no creed but the Bible; but those who sul 
scribe to creeds make the same profession, Wherein, then, is the differ- 
ence? Let us scan this question closely. Where, we ask, is the real, 
the practical difference ? 

The creed-party say they are governed by the Bible alone, but hon- 
estly admit that they mean the Bible as they understand its teachings ; 
and they adopt a creed as an exhibit, so far as it goes, of what they un- 
derstand the Bible to teach. Here all is plain and open, as it should be; 
no one is deceived, deluded, or mystified ; all may read, examine, un- 
derstand, and test their positions. 

But how is it with the no-creed party ? They too say they are gov- 
erned by the Bible alone. They admit no qualification. “The Bible 
alone,” say they, “and not the Bible as interpreted by any man or set of 
men.” But when we come to view the application and practical work- 
ings of this no-creed theory, as has been shown, its standard is not the 
Bible alone, allowing each one to interpret the book for himself, but 
the Bible as they, the no-creed party, have agreed or may agree to inter- 
pret it, 

Now, we demand, if this be the true statement of the facts in the 
case, which none can deny, how is it possible to reconcile the theory 
with the practice of the no-creed party? Their theory is this—we are 
governed by the Bible alone; their practice is this—we are governed by 
the Bible as we interpret it. Now, there is but one possible way of ree- 
onciling these two propositions; and that is, to admit that the no-creed 
party are endued with infallibility as Bible interpreters. If there be 
one single point in which they interpret the Bible incorrectly, and they 
are governed by that interpretation (which they of course will be), 
then in that case they are not governed by the Bible alone. The conclu- 
sion therefore is inevitable, that they must either claim the infallibility 
assumed by the Pope, or relinquish their cherished boast that they are 
governed by the Bible alone in any higher sense than inose who sub- 
scribe to written creeds. 

There is an imposing aspect and a fragrance of liberality about the 
phrase, “The Bible, and the Bible alone;” but let us not be ensnare¢ 


Ch. x.] CREEDS, DISCIPLINES, AND CONFESSIONS. 935 


by illusive charms, let us look at the reality of things; the substance, 
and not the shadow, can alone satisfy the thinking mind. 

What, we ask, is a law without an expounding and executive power? 
Mere law in the abstract is as powerless for government, whether of 
Church or state, as a web of gossamer. The constitution and laws 
of our country are only efficacious as expounded by the courts and 
enforced by the executive; just so, the Scriptures can only be availa- 
ble for the government of the Church as interpreted and administered 
by some recognized power. To aver that we are governed by the New 
Testament, or by the Bible, amounts to nothing, unless we can deter- 
mine what are the teachings of that book. The creed defines the 
agreed sense of those teachings, and recognizes the proper officers for 
administering the law and the method of proceeding therein. 

Those who acknowledge no creed but the Bible must, in the nat- 
ure of things, adopt some method of settling the meaning of Seript- 
ure, and of carrying out the law, otherwise they can have no govern- 
ment whatever. This they unquestionably have done; and disguise 
it as they may, they are governed, not by “the Bible alone,” but 
by their interpretation of the Bible, and this interpretation, however 
it may be arrived at, and settled, or agreed to, is, de facto, their creed. 
Hence the conclusion of the whole matter is, that the opposition to 
written creeds either starts upon an erroneous basis, assuming that 
creeds are intended to coerce obedience upon those who have not vol- 
untarily adopted them, and thus interfere with liberty of conscience, 
or it involves the no-creed party in the inconsistency of warring against 
creeds by the use of arguments fatal to their own position and contra- 
dictory to their own practice. 


936 


ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. 


{ia iv. Bis 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER X. 


Quesrion 1. Whence has the prejudice 


against written creeds generally 

originated ? 

. How is this prejudice shown to be 

unwarranted ? 

. What is the first argument for the 
propriety and utility of creeds? 

How is it shown that creeds do not 
infringe upon the liberty of con- 
science? 

. What is the second argument for 

creeds? 

. Why is a creed necessary for the or- 

derly conducting of public worship? 

. Why is it necessary in reference to 
the regular preaching of the word 
of God? 

Why is it necessary in reference to the 
administration of the ordinances? 


9. 


10. 


13. 


14, 


15. 


Why is it necessary in reference to 
the Sabbath and the Lord’s-sup- 
per? 

Why, in reference to Church-disci- 
pline? 


. What is the first objection to creeds, 


and how is it answered ? 


. The second, and how is it an- 


swered ? 

The third, and how is it an 
swered ? 

How is it shown that those who 
object to creeds, in endeavoring 
to sustain those objections, in 
volve themselves in  self-contra- 
diction ? 

What is stated as the conclusion of 
the whole matter ? 


PART IV.—THE INSTITUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY 


BOOK I1.—THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. 


CHAPTER XI. 
THE NUMBER AND NATURE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 


Curisrianiry, when compared with the Mosaic institution by which 
it was preceded, is emphatically a spiritual dispensation. Its ex- 
ternal religious services are simple, and its rites and ceremonies are 
neither numerous nor burdensome. It is universally admitted by Prot- 
estants that the sacramental ordinances of the Christian Church are but 
two—Baptism, and the Lord’s-supper. 

The Roman Catholics, who have deluged the Church with so many 
superstitious rites and ceremonies, have added to the two sacramental 
ordinances of the New Testament, five others—Confirmation, Penance, 
Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction; but as none of these are 
presented in Scripture as sacraments, and as they are destitute in their 
nature of the essential characteristics of such ordinances, presenting no 
visible sign or seal of covenant relation or spiritual grace, we pass them 
without farther notice. 

The word pvarfptoy “ means, in the New Testament, either secret— 
something unknown till revealed—or the spiritual import of an emblem 
or type.” The word in Latin is sacramentum, which means a solemn 
religious ceremony, or oath. 

There are three leading views as to the import of the Christian sacra- 
ments. 

1. The Roman Catholics teach that the sacraments contain the grace 
they signify, and that this grace is communicated to the recipient, pro- 
vided it be not prevented by a mortal sin on the part of the individual 
receiving it, and provided, also, that the priests administering “have an 
intention of doing what the Church doeth, and doth intend to do.” Jt 

(937) 


938 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


will be perceived that this theory gives to the sacraments a divine and 
saving efficacy, independent of faith, or any good disposition, or moral 
qualification whatever (a mortal sin excepted ), on the part of the recip- 
ient. A doctrine so absurd as this can have no Scripture for its sup- 
port, and, of course, must ground its claims wholly upon the traditions 
of a superstitious Church. 

2. The second view of the subject is that maintained by Socinians, 
and more or less followed by Arians, Unitarians, Universalists, and 
even too much favored by some Protestants having higher claims to 
orthodoxy. This theory does not allow any essential difference between 
a sacrament and any other religious rite or ceremony; the only pecu- 
liarity of a sacrament, according to this scheme, being its emblematic 
character, representing spiritual grace by visible signs, and being a 
memorial of past events. Hence, according to this theory, a sacrament 
is merely a help to the exerise of faith and pious meditation, and a 
means of promoting the graces of Christian character. 

3. The third view is that entertained by the great body of orthodox 
Protestants. While it admits and contends for all that the second the- 
ory implies, it maintains that a Christian sacrament has yet a deeper 
and more comprehensive import. ‘The true meaning of a sacrament 
is well expressed in our sixteenth Article of Religion, thus: 

“Sacraments ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of 
Christian men’s profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, 
and God’s good will toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly in 
us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith 
in him.” 

This substantially agrees with the creeds of orthodox Protestants gen- 
erally Accordingly it appears that Christian sacraments are— 

1. Ordinances of Christ. They are institutions of his own express 
appointment. At the close of the Passover he ordained the “Supper,” 
administering to the “twelve” the “bread” and the “wine,” saying, 
“This do in remembrance of me.” In the great commission he insti- 
tuted the Christian Baptism, saying, “Go ye therefore, and teach all 
nations, baptizing them,” ete. 

2. They are signs. They are visible emblems of internal spiritual 
grace. The baptismal water points us to the corruption and depravity 
of om nature, which needs cleansing, and to the fountain of grace by 
which we may be washed and purified. The bread and the wine direct 
our faith to the atonement of Christ—to his broken body and shed 
blood—exhibiting his redeeming mercy and love in suffering for sinners, 


that he might bring them to God. 


Ch. xi,} THE NUMBER AND NATURE OF THE SACRAMEYTS. y39 


3. They are seals, As circumcision was the divinely-appointed seal of 
the covenant of redemption as given to Abraham, so “ Baptism” and 
the “Supper” are seals under the gospel of the same covenant. By 
giving us these seals, God confirms unto us visibly the promise of his 
saving mercy. By receiving them, we enter upon the most solemn obli- 
gations of fidelity and obedience to God. Thus these sacraments, while 
we attach to them no superstitious idea of efficacy as a charm, or of 
directly imparting a spiritual benefit through a physical agency, yet are 
they a most influential means of grace. They tend to increase and 
confirm our faith, to quicken our spiritual powers, to encourage our 
hopes, and to renew and strengthen our obligations to love and to serve 


God. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XI. 


Question 1. What are the Christian sac- 5. What is the Roman Catholic view as 


raments as enumerated by the Ro- to the nature and efficacy of sac- 
man Catholics? raments? 

2. Which of these are destitute of Bible | 6. Whatis the view of Socinians, Arians, 
authority ? : Universalists, etc.? 

3. What are the Christian sacraments as| 7. What is the orthodox view ou the 
set forth in Scripture? subject ? 


4 What is the Greek word for sacra- 
ment, and what is its import? 


940 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. & 


CHAPTER XII. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS NATURE, OBLIGATION, DESIGN, AND EFFIf- 
CACY. 


CHRISTIAN Baptism is a subject upon which, for centuries past, there 
haz, perhaps, been a greater amount of polemic strife than upon any 
other theological question. Upon this arena master combatants oft 
and again have fiercely met, and plied their utmost skill and strength, 
and left the field with the question no nearer being settled than when 
they began. Judging from the past, we may reasonably despair of 
perfect harmony of sentiment in the Church on this trite and much- 
mooted theme till the second coming of Christ. In the present stage of 
this controversy we can scarcely hope to present any thing substantially 
new; nor shall we-aim at any thing farther than a clear and condensed 
view of the leading and most important arguments necessary to sus- 
tain what we consider the correct and scriptural statement of the doctrine. 

I. The first question in connection with this theme naturally present- 
ing itself for our consideration is this: What is the NATURE of Chris- 
tian baptism? 

As this is admitted to be what is termed a positive institute, it is clear 
that we are dependent entirely upon the divine record for our informa 
tion. 

The term baptism is from the Greek Bartigw, which is a derivative 
of Bdrrw, This word, according to the lexicographers, means “to dip, 
to plunge into water, to wash, to dye,” etc. It is, however, very clear that 
the etymology of the word can furnish us no information as to the 
nature or design of the ordinance. Upon this point, whatever we may 
conclude as to the mode and subjects of baptism, no light can be shed 
by the etymological discussion ; and we may also add that, in the ques- 
tion now before us, we have nothing whatever to do with the mode or 
subjects of baptism. Those matters must be held in abeyance for after 
consideration. 

As to the nature and design of baptism, we must rely solely on the 
history of the subject and the statements concerning it, as recorded in 
the Bible. Tt is admitted that our Saviour ingrafted the sacrament of 


Ch, xii.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. | 


the “ Lord’s-supper” on the Jewish Passover ; and it may be affirmed that 
“ Baptism,” the other Christian sacrament, had its origin in a similar 
way—being substituted for “circumcision.” The institution of Christian 
baptism unquestionably was set up and established in the great commis- 
sion given to the apostles by the Saviour after his resurrection: “Go 
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob- 
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto theend of the world.” Matt. xxviii. 19,20. Here 
we date the divine origin of baptism as a standing, obligatory, and per- 
petual ordinance of the Christian Church. Here is the great charter 
from which the Christian ministry in all ages derive their divine autho 

ity for the administration of this ordinance. 

But notwithstanding this ordinance, as a permanent Christian inst1- 
tute, was here established, it is clear that baptism did not then for the 
first time take its existence in the Church. Though our Saviour here 
gave it a new, specific designation, it was no new institution hitherto 
unheard of: he does not refer to it av such, but speaks of it as some 
thing with which the disciples were already acquainted. Under the 
direction of our Lord, they had already heen practicing a baptism prob- 
ably but little different from that of John, with which the whole Jew- 
ish nation were familiar. 

1. That baptism was practiced among the Jews long before the time of 
John, and probably from the commencement of the Mosaie economy, we 
have good evidence for believing. 

St. Paul speaks of “divers washings” (Gamrtopotc, baptisms) as ex- 
isting among the Jews (Heb. ix. 10). And Maimonides testifies that 
“jn all ages, when a heathen was willing to enter into the covenant of 
Israel, and gather himself under the wings of the majesty of God, and 
take upon himself the yoke of the law, he must be first circumcised, 
and secondly, baptized, and thirdly, bring a sacrifice; or, if the party 
were a woman, then she must be first baptized, and secondly, bring a 
sacrifice.” He adds: “At this present time, when (the temple being 
destroyed) there is no sacrificing, a stranger must he first circumcised, 
and secondly, baptized.” 

From Epictetus we have the following testimony (he is blaming those 
who assume the profession of philosophy without acting up to it): 
“Why do you call yourself a Stoic? Why do you deceive the multi- 
tude? Why do you pretend to be a Greek when you are a Jew, a 
Syrian, an Egyptian? And when you see any one wavering, we are 
wont to say, This is not a Jew, but acts one; but when he assumes the 


942 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


sentiments of une who has been baptized and circumcised, then he both 
really is and is called a Jew. Thus we, falsifying our profession, are 
Jews in name, but in reality something else.” 

This ancient Jewish baptism of proselytes, concerning the existence 
of which there can be no rational doubt, seems to have been an act of 
initiation, or of transfer from paganism to Judaism. As the Jew, when 
from any cause he had become ceremonially unclean, was excommuni- 
cated or cut off from the privileges of the Church till he had performed 
the washings, or baptisms, prescribed by the law, so the Gentile, on being 
publicly admitted into the Church, was also required to submit to a 
washing, or baptism, to signify his being purified from the pollutions of 
his former religion, AJI we can learn, therefore, as to the nature and 
design of this proselyte baptism is, that it was a publie act of initiation 
signifying purification. As to the various “washings,” or baptisms, 
among the Jews themselves, they all denoted that ceremonial purifica- 
tion from defilement which the law described. 

2. The “baptism of John” next demands a brief notice. This bap- 
tism, till recently, has been generally held by immersionists as identical 
with, or as really the commencement of, the Christian baptism; but 
this preposterous view seems to be now pretty generally abandoned by 
the more intelligent Baptists, and especially has it been renounced by 
Alexander Campbell, one of the most learned immersionists of the age. 
Yet as this absurd notion is still firmly grounded in the prejudice of 
many, it merits some attention. 

That “John’s baptism” was not the Christian baptism is manifest 
from several ¢onsiderations. 

(1) The distinctive appellation given it in Scripture shows that it was 
not the Christian baptism. It is called “John’s baptism.” How absurd 
would it be to speak of “ Peter’s baptism,” “ Paul’s baptism,” or “A pol- 
los’s baptism!” Yet if “ John’s baptism” were identical with the Chris- 
tian baptism, such expressions would be no more absurd than to speak 
of “John’s baptism,” 

(2) The difference in the formula used in the Christian baptism and 
that of John clearly evinces that the two baptisms were not identical. 
The formula of the Christian baptism runs thus: “In the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;” or, as it is sometimes 
more briefly expressed, “In the name of the Lord Jesus.” John eyvi- 
dently did not, nor could he, use language of any such import. 

(3) The character of John’s dispensation renders it impossible that 
his baptism could have been the same as the Christian. John was the 
forerunner of Christ, and his dispensation was but preparatory to that 


’ 


Uh, xn.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 943 


of the gospel. This appears from the words of John himself. In speak- 
ing of Christ he says: “ He must increase, but I must decrease ”—that 
is, my dispensation must quickly pass away, like unto “ the voice of one 
crying in the wilderness,” that quickly dies upon the ear, but his “king: 
dom” shall increase more and more, “for he must reign till he hath 
put all enemies under his feet.” Again, Jesus says: “Among them tha. 
are born of women there hath not risen a greater than Jchn the Bap 
tist: notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven -s 
greater than he.” The “kingdom of heaven” here evidently means 
the gospel Church, and he that is /east in that Church can only be said 
to be greater than John, because of the fact that he lives in the enjoy- 
ment of the superior blessings of the gospel dispensation, while the dis- 
pensation of John was inferior and only preparatory. 

(4) That “John’s baptism” could not be the Christian baptism, is 
evident from the fact that it had passed away before Christianity was in- 
troduced. John began to preach and baptize six months before our 
Saviour entered upon his public ministry. Hence, if John’s was the 
Christian baptism, it would follow that this initiatory rite was not insti- 
tuted by Christ himself, but by his forerunner, at least six months pre- 
vious to the existence of Christianity. Into what absurdities does error 
impel her votaries! 

(5) The condition and requirements of “ John’s baptism” are so dif- 
ferent from those of the Christian baptism, that the two could not have 
been identical. John simply demanded of the people repentance, say- 
ing: “ Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. iii. 8); 
or, as St. Paul expresses it, “John verily baptized with the baptism of 
repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which 
should come after him.” But in the Christian baptism there is not only 
required repentance, but also faith—not in a Messiah to come, but ina 
Saviour who has already come, and suffered, and died for our sins, and 
risen again for our justification; for St. Paul says: “ Know ye not 
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized 
into his death?” And when the eunuch demanded baptism, the reply 
of Philip was: “If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest.” Here 
we see that in Christian baptism there is required not only faith in 
Christ as a manifested Saviour, but a faith realizing and introducing 
the subject of it into the enjoyment of the full benefits of his sacrificial 
death in the remission of sin and the renewing of the soul by the influ- 
ence of the Holy Spirit. John did not even baptize in the name of 
Christ. How, then, could his be the Christian baptism ? 

(6) Again, the example of the apostles in rebaptizing John’s disciples 


944 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. Boa 


when they were converted to Christianity, is the most direct proof that 
the two baptisms were not the same. (See Acts xix. 1-5.) We know 
that an effort has been made by some who hold to “ John’s baptism” as 
a Christian institute, to construe this passage in such manner that it 
shali not teach the rebaptism of John’s disciples; but we consider the 
passage so plain, that the effort to escape its force by any other than 
the obvious construction that records the rebaptism of John’s disciples, 
is too manifestly strained to be dictated by any thing but prejudice; 
therefore we deem it unworthy of a reply. 

Although we conclude, for the reasons given, that the baptism of 
John was not identical with the permanent Christian baptism instituted 
by Christ, yet it was divinely sanctioned, and served the purpose fur 
which it was intended. It bore the same relation to the Christian bap- 
tism that John’s ministry did to that of the apostles when they went 
forth in the discharge of their great commission after having been “en- 
dued with power from on high.” As to its nature and design, all we 
caa learn is, that it served as a badge of profession, or as an initiatory 
rite into John’s dispensation, implying that its recipient made a public 
confession of his sins, and a profession of repentance, and of faith in a 
Messiah soon to appear. With John’s disciples, baptism was an appli- 
cation of water, used as an emblem of the moral purification prepara- 
tory for that reception of the Messiah which repentance implied, and a 
profession of faith in the doctrines of John’s dispensation. 

The baptism which Christ commanded his disciples to perform dur- 
ing his personal ministry, and previous to his crucifixion, however it 
may have differed in character from that of John’s, was not the same 
baptism which was afterward appointed under the perfected gospel sys- 
tem, and which was to be perpetuated “alway, even unto the end of 
the world.” The baptism connected with Christ’s personal ministry 
bore the same relation to the Christian baptism that his personal teach- 
ings, while he was (as Paul déclares, Rom. xv. 8) “a minister of the 
circumcision,” bore to the gospel in its complete development after the 
Pentecostal baptism had been conferred. Christ’s personal ministry, 
previous to Pentecost, and also that of his disciples, were only prepara- 
tory to the full development of the gospel kingdom. The mission was, 
then, not to the Gentiles, but to the Jews. Jesus “came unto his own;” 
that is, the Jews. And he said, “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel.” (Matt. xv. 24.) The mission of the apostles 
was, then, “ not into the way of the Gentiles,” or “into any city of the 
Samaritans,” but “unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 

This baptism was, nevertheless, a badge of profession ; for it designated 


Ch xii.} CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. O45 


its subjects as “disciples” of Jesus, and believers in him as a “teacher 
come from God.” It differed from the Christian baptism, ‘irzt, because 
it was not “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost ;” secondly, because it did not recognize in its profession of faith 
a crucified and risen Messiah. It was no more identical with the Chris- 
tian baptism instituted in the great apostolic commission, than was that 
of John. A person baptized with the faith required, either in John’s 
baptism or that of Christ’s apostles, previous to the grand commission 
given after Christ’s resurrection, could not be thereby admitted into 
communion in any genuine Christian Church in the world. Such a bap- 
tism and such a faith would rather indicate a Jew than a Christian. 

II. We now proceed to examine the OBLIGATION OF CHRISTIAN BAP- 
TISM in the proper sense of that term. 

Christian baptism is an ordinance of universal and perpetual obliga- 
tion. 

By this we mean that it is the duty of all who would become Chris- 
tians to be baptized, and that this obligation was not a temporary re- 
quirement, but is to be perpetuated in the Church “alway, even unto 
the end of the world.” 

We know of no denomination, “professing and calling themselves 
Christians,” who have denied the perpetuity of this ordinance in the 
Christian Church, except the Quakers. It is, however, admitted that 
some among the Socinians, Unitarians, and other classes of sectaries 
of loose principles and heterodox creed, have lightly esteemed water 
baptism, contemplating it as possessing no sacramental character, but 
being mainly an external mark of distinction between Pagans and 
Christians ; useful at the introduction of the gospel in Pagan countries, 
but not necessary as a perpetual ordinance of the Church. It has been 
well said that “extremes beget extremes ;” and, perhaps, the early ten- 
dency in the Church to magnify the importance of external rites, and 
attach a superstitious and unscriptural efficacy to mere forms and cere- 
monies, has tended to drive some to the opposite extreme of esteeming 
them too lightly. Indeed, the error, in this respect, of the Mystics, 
Quakers, Socinians, and all others who have repudiated or undervalued 
water baptism or other external rites, is but an outbirth from the oppo- 
site and more dangerous theories concerning sacramental salvation, water 
regeneration, ete. 

That water baptism is an institution of perpetual obligation in the 
Church, is a clear deduction from the language of the great apostolic 
commission: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Hely Ghost ; teach. 

40 


Dio ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I 
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt. xxviii. 19, 
20.) Or as it is recorded by St. Mark: “Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved.” (Mark xvi. 15, 16.) 

From the terms of this commission it is settled beyond dispute—1. 
That it is to extend universally over the world—* ali nations” —“ all the 
world ”—“ every creature.” This language admits of no restriction to 
the commencement of the dispensation, or to the introduction of the gos- 
pel in a Pagan country. 2. The perpetuity of the institution of bap- 
tism is here unquestionably established: “Alway, even unto the end 
of the world.” This phrase, as well as the language recorded by St. 
Mark—“ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ”-—can only 
be rationally interpreted as teaching the perpetuity of the commission, 
and the performance of water baptism as one of its abiding functions. 
Other scriptures, to the sume effect, might be quoted ; but it is sufficient 
to add that in all the Bible, whether we refer to those predictions of the 
prophets concerning the gospel dispensation in which water baptism is 
evidently referred to, or to the teachings of Christ, or to the writings 
and administration of his inspired apostles, there is not the slightest 
intimation that this ordinance was ever to be discontinued. ‘To set 
aside the obligation of water baptism (though the error might be less 
pernicious), would be equally as destitute of authority from Scripture, 
as to discard the requirement of repentance or of faith. 

It may be proper, however, before we dismiss this point, to inquire 
upon what ground the attempt has been made to disprove the perpetuity 
of this ordinance. 

In addition to mere reasoning from general principles, based upon 
the admitted fact of the spirituality of the gospel dispensation, as con- 
trasted with the ceremonial character of that of Moses, express Scrip- 
ture authority has been invoked to disprove the perpetual obligation of 
water baptism. 

On this subject some have founded an argument on the words of 
John: “T indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he shall 
baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Here John shows his inferiority to 
the Messiah, from the fact that he (John) baptized only “with water,” 
but Christ would “baptize with the Holy Ghost.” But how gratuitous 
and preposterous is it to infer that because the Saviour baptized “ with 
the Holy Ghost,” therefore he could not authorize baptism “ with water” 
But how monstrous must this inference appear, when it is remembered 
that it so flatly contradicts the plain history of the facts! for on the 


Ch. xii.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. O47 


very day of Pentecost, when the baptism of the Holy Ghost was first 
poured out, “three thousand” were also baptized with water. And 
again, when, under the preaching of Peter, the baptism of the Holy Ghost 
fell on the first Gentile converts in the house of Cornelius, so far from 
this baptism superseding that of water, the apostle infers the propriety 
of the one from the fact of the other. His language is, “Can any man 
forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the 
Holy Ghost as well as we?” Indeed, we may say that to discard water 
baptism as a mere temporary appendage, and not a permanent. institu- 
tion of the gospe., is not to be guided by the New Testament, but to 
proceed in direct opposition to its history. Hence, we conclude that 
while the gospel shall continue to be preached in the world, and the or- 
ganization of the Christian Church shall be preserved, water baptism, 
“in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” 
will still be required. 

III. We have already contemplated baptism, as also the-other sacra- 
ment—the Lord’s-supper—as a sign and seal of “internal spiritual 
grace.” We now inquire more particularly concerning the design and 
efficacy of baptism. 

1, The first theory upon this subject which we shall notice, is that of 
the Roman Catholics. They attribute to this sacrament a saving eff- 
cacy—teaching that, in some mysterious way, there is directly imparted 
through this ordinance, when properly administered, spiritual grace, in 
such sense, that whatever may be the character of the subject (unless 
he be guilty of some mortal sin), his moral nature is at once regener. 
ated and sanctified; thus attributing to the element of water the effi: 
cacy pertaining alone to the blood of Christ, and to the agency of the 
priest the work of regeneration and sanctification, which can only be 
effected by the agency of the Holy Spirit. 

2, Another theory, somewhat different from the view just presented, 
though closely allied to it, has been sanctioned by a class of High- 
church Episcopalians, and very zealously advocated by Alexander 
Campbell and his followers. This theory, while it rejects the notion 
that there is any saving efficacy in the sacrament of baptism itself, or 
any spiritual grace directly imparted through this application of water, 
independent of the character or disposition of the subject, yet maintains 
that baptism, properly administered‘and received, secures the grace of 
regeneration, and is the means and pledge of the remission of sins. 

The abettors of this theory are, however, not agreed among themselves 
as to the import of regeneration. While some of them understand the 
term as implying, according to its commonly received im port, a change 


948 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [V.1v. B. 2 


of heat, or a renewal of the moral nature, others construe it as mean 
ing only a change of state; yet they harmonize in the position that the 
remission of sins is promised only through baptism, and, consequently, 
that without baptism an evidence of forgiveness cannot be obtained. 
Alexander Campbell has expressed his peculiar theory upon this subject 
in the following language: “ We have the most explicit proof that God 
forgives sins for the name’s sake of his Son, or when the name of Jesua 
Christ is named upon us in immersion; that in and by the act of im- 
mersion, 80 soon as our bodies are put under water, at that very instant 
our former or ‘old sins’ are all washed away, provided only that we 
are true believers.” | 

It is apparent, from the account just given of the views of Roman 
Catholies, High-church Episcopalians, and of Alexander Campbell, as 
tu the connection of baptism with regeneration and the remission of 
sins, that there are several shades of difference in sentiment among them. 
Yet, so closely are they allied, that a refutation of the position of Mr. 
Campbell, as just presented in his own language, will comprise a refuta- 
tion of all the schemes to which we have referred. Therefore, we pro- 
ceed directly to examine that position. 

The position is substantially this: that the remission of sins is im- 
parted only through baptism. 

This, which is the theory of Mr. Campbell, we consider but little better 
than the doctrine of the High-church Episcopalians or of the Roman 
Catholics. These schemes, we are satisfied, are radically erroneous, sub- 
stituting, in effect, the element of water and the physical agency of 
man for the blood of Christ and the divine agency of the Holy Spirit. 

Now, if we can show that there is some other condition, separate and 
distinct from baptism, with which the remission of sins is inseparably 
connected, and that remission is not thus inseparably conneeted with 
baptism, it will follow, of course, that the position we oppose cannot be 
true, wat 

We appeal, then, “to the law and to the testimony.” “He that be- 
leveth on him is not condemned.” (John iii. 18.) “He that believeth 
on the Son hath everlasting life.” (John iii. 36.) “ Verily, verily I say 
unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.’ (John iii. 47.) 
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the 
deeds of the law.” (Rom. iii. 28:) “To him give all the prophets 
witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive 
remission of sins.” (Acts x. 43.) 

A large portion of Scripture, to the same effect, might be adduced; 
but to add more is needless. If the above passages do not decide the 


Ch. xii.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 949 


point that faith, and not baptism, is the condition on which the “remis 
sion of sins” turns, no language could be framed to prove the position. 
Here we are taught that every believer is freed from “ condemnation” — 
“hath everlasting life”—*is justified ””—and “shall receive remission 
of sins.” Now, we affirm that no man can possess all these things and 
his sins not be remitted. Can aman be “not condemned,” “ have ever- 
lasting life,” and be “justified,” and his sins not be remitted? The 
supposition is utterly inadmissible. Can he have faith without baptism ? 
Surely he can. Why not? Then it follows that his sins may be re- 
mitted without baptism. Indeed, Mr. Campbell’s system not only con- 
tradicts the Bible, but fights against itself. Mr. Campbell teaches that 
a man must have faith before he can properly receive baptism; but if 
he has faith, if the Bible be true, “his sins ave remitted ;’ and Mr. 
Campbell correctly tells us that if he has not faith, his sins will not be 
remitted in baptism. Hence it follows that if all who believe (as the 
Bible teaches) have already received “remission of sins,” and if (as 
Mr. Campbell teaches) they can only receive the “remission of sins” 
by first believing and then being baptized, it amounts to this: a man 
must first have “his sins remitted” before they can be remitted—that 
is, a thing must be before it can be. The truth is, the theory that “ re- 
mission of sins” is inseparably connected with baptism flatly contra- 
dicts the Bible. The Bible connects remission inseparably with faith. 
Admit the truth of this position (which we cannot deny without flatly 
contradicting many plain scriptures, as we have shown), then we cannot 
escape the conclusion, according to Mr. Campbell, that we must first 
have remission before we can have it, which is a contradiction. 

We take the first text which we quoted above—“He that believeth on 
him ts not condemned ”—and if there were no other scripture bearing on 
the subject, this alone contains a proof of the position for which we 
here contend, that can never be shaken (unless we flatly contradict the 
Saviour) by all the skill, ingenuity, and sophistry in the world. “ He 
that believeth on him is not condemned.” Now, if this text means 
any thing, it means this: that all who believe on Christ are, that in- 
stant—the very moment they first believe on Christ—free from condemna- 
tion; and if free from condemnation, then they are pardoned, forgiven, 
their sins are remitted, they are justified, they are the children of God, 
they “shall not come into condemnation, but are passed from death unto 
life.” Can language be plainer, or proof clearer or more direct? If it 
be, then, a settled Bible maxim that the “remission of sins” is insepar- 
ably connected with faith, can it, at the same time, be inseparably con- 
nected with baptism? It is utterly impossible, unless we say that faith 


950 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [T. iv. B,& 


also is inseparably connected with baptism. We arrive again at the 
same conclusion—faith gives remission; but if faith must first exist in 
order to proper baptism, then baptism cannot give remission; for you 
cannot give a man what he already possesses. 

Seeing, then, that the Scriptures so explicitly and so abundantly teach 
that the “remission of sins” is inseparably connected with faith, we 
now examine those texts which, it is alleged, teach that “ remission of 
sins” is inseparably connected with baptism. Of one thing we may be 
well assured: the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. If, there- 
fore, it can be established from the Scriptures that “ remission of sins ” 
is inseparably connected with baptism, then it will necessarily follow 
that faith is inseparably connected with baptism; for “things equal to 
the same are equal to one another.” 

The main reliance of the advocates of the system of baptismal re- 
generation and remission is on the words of Peter in his sermon at 
Pentecost : “ Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and 
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts ii. 38.) Now, the 
question is, does this text necessarily prove the inseparable connection 
of the remission of sins with baptism? We contend that it does not, 
In the phrase, “for the remission of sins,” great stress has been laid on 
the meaning of the Greek preposition, el¢, which, it is contended, shoulc 
have been translated “in order to,” instead of “for.”’ We attach nc 
importance whatever to the controversy about the translation. The 
same preposition, as may be shown from numerous examples in the New 
Testament, may be translated in either way. It often means “in order 
to,” and it often means “in reference to,” or “on account of;” and the 
context must determine the proper sense. But the rendering of the 
preposition in this instance can have no effect upon the question before 
us. The question is this: Is it clearly taught that baptism is here 
presented as the essential and inseparable condition of rem#ssion? Under 
the sermon of Peter the wicked Jews were “pricked in their heart ;” 
that is, they were convicted, and cried out: “Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?” They seem to have been in a similar condition to that 
of the jailer when he exclaimed, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?” 
In this condition were they when “ Peter said unto them, Repent, and 
be baptized,” ete. Now, as it is evident from this language that they 
had not yet evangelically repented, is it not also clearly implied that 
they had not yet believed “ to the saving of the soul?” 

In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, St. Peter, in re 
ferring to the conversion of the Jews at Pentecost, clearly teaches that 


Ch. xii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 951 


faith, and not baptism, was the great instrument of their salvation. — In 
arguing that the Gentiles, who had embraced the gospel, should be re- 
ceived into the communion of the Church, Peter speaks as follows: 
“Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made 
choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word 
of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare 
them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and 
put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” 
Here, in speaking of the salvation of the Gentiles, the apostle refers 
not to their baptism, but to their faith—‘ that the Gentiles by my mouth 
should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” And, again, he says: 
“And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by 
faith.” Now, here is proof positive that the Gentiles had their hearts 
purified by faith, and not by baptism ; that is, they were converted, justi- 
fied, pardoned, saved, and their sins were remitted by faith, not bap- 
tism. 

Again, precisely as it was with the Gentiles, so was it with the Jews 
at Pentecost. God put no difference between them. According to St. 
Peter, then, as the Gentiles received remission through faith, so did the 
Jews at Pentecost. Thus it is clear that, according to the apostle’s com- 
ment on his own words, when he said, “ Repent and be baptized for the 
remission of sins,” faith was necessarily implied in connection with re- 
pentance, as the grand instrument or condition through which remission 
was obtained. It is, therefore, manifest that the passage under review, 
so far from teaching that baptism is the instrument, condition, or means, 
by or through which the remission of sins is obtained, does, most ex- 
plicitly, when the apostle is allowed to comment on his own language, 
teach the inseparable connection of the remission of sins with faith, 
and not with baptism. 

One or two other texts have also been urged in support of the theory 
here opposed. For instance, the words of Ananias to Saul have been 
quoted : “Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord.” But the arguments already presented on the sub- 
ject will apply with equal force against the doctrine, from whatever 
Scripture its proof may be attempted; therefore, we examine the testi- 
mony no farther. 

We arrive, then, at the conclusion that although water baptism should 
not be too lightly esteemed, and either set aside as not necessary under 
the gospel, or viewed as merely a form of initiation, or as a help to the 
exercise of faith, neither, on the other hand, should it be exalted too 
highly, as possessing intrinsic virtue and saving efficacy. The truth is 


952 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iv. B. 2 


this: it is a sign of Christian men’s profession, and also of the inward 
spiritual grace of regeneration and sanctification, and a seal of the gra- 
cious covenant by which the Church relation and the promise of eter- 
nal life are confirmed unto God’s people. 

But yet, it is but an external ordinance. It is no substitute for the 
blood of atonement, by which alone sins can be washed away; or for 
the influence of the Holy Spirit, by which alone the regeneration and 
sanctification of the soul can be secured. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XII. 


Question 1. What is the etymology of | 11. By what arguments is this position 


the word baptism ? sustained ? 

2. Can vt impart any light as to the na- | 12. How has the attempt been made to 
ture or design of the ordinance? disprove the position ? 

3. Where do we date the origin of Chris- | 18. What is the Roman Catholic view 
tian baptism ? as to the nature of Christian bap- 

4, What evidence have we that the Jews tism ? 
practiced a proselyte baptism ? 14. What the view of High-church Epis- 

5. What was its design ? copalians? 

6 What was the design of the Jewish | 15. What the view of Alexander Camp- 
baptisms under the law ? bell? 

7. What was the nature of John’s bap- | 16. Is there any material difference be- 
lism? tween these views? 

8. How is it proved that John's was not | 17. How may Mr. Campbell’s view be 
the Christian baptism ? shown to be erroneous? 

v. What relation did the baptism Christ | 18. Upon what scriptures has he mainly 
commanded his disciples to perform based his argument on the eab- 
previous to his crucifixion, sustain ject? 
to the Christian baptism ? 19. What is the reply to his s:gu- 

22 [s the Christian baptism of universal ment? 


at } perpetual obligation? 


Ch. xiii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 953 


CHAPTER XIII. 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 


Ir is admitted by all who believe in the propriety of water baptism 
that believers in Christ, cr all who are “the children of God by faith in 
Christ Jesus,” are proper subjects of baptism; hence we deem it use- 
less to stop a moment to present proof upon that subject. The ques-. 
tion we propound is this, Are believers the only proper subjects of bap- 
tism? That the Baptist position upon this question is erroneous, we 
shall endeavor to show. 

I. That the INFANT CHILDREN of believing parents are proper sub- 
jects of Christian baptism, is a plain, direct, and necessary inference 
from the express statute and appointment of God. 

He who will believe nothing that is not formally declared, in so 
many words, in Scripture, must expunge from his creed a large portion 
of the important truths which are firmly believed by the entire body 
of orthodox Christians. It is admitted by every intelligent, unbiased 
mind that, in all the judicial proceedings of courts, and according to 
the acknowledged principles of sound logic, inferential testimony is 
often as satisfactory and convincing as direct proof possibly can be; 
therefore to discard or deny the validity of inferential testimony, is 
only to give evidence that we are governed in our opinions by the arbi- 
trary impulse of blinded prejudice rather than the sober dictates of 
calm and correct reasoning. To illustrate this principle, we remark 
that the Scriptures nowhere, in direct terms, declare that God exists; 
yet who will not admit that the existence of God is abundantly estab- 
lished in the Bible by inferential testimony? There is no record in 
Scripture commanding sacrificial worship in the patriarchal age; yet. 
who for a moment can doubt that this method of worship originated 
in divine appointment? There is no direct precept in the Bible chang- 
ing the Sabbath to the first day of the week, yet the fact is generally 
recognized. Family prayer is admitted to be a duty, but where is di- 
rect precept for it? Similar observations might be made in reference 
to various other important religious obligations, which, though not di- 


954 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. ~ [P. iv. B. 2 


rectly enjoined, are acknowledged to rest on inferential testimony en- 
tirely satisfactory. 

We will now proceed to show that infant baptism is established by 
inferential testimony deduced from the direct command of God. And, 
first, we remark that all law, to be obligatory upon the subject, must 
be enacted by a power having the right to command; and when thus 
enacted, it remains in force until the same authority by which it was 
enacted, or some other power of equal authority, shall repeal it. The 
trvth of this position, we think, cannot be questioned. Now if it can 
be shown that the right of infants to membership in the Church of 
God was once established by direct enactment of Heaven, and that the 
right of baptism now pertains to all who are entitled to membership in 
the Church, it necessarily follows that infants are entitled to baptism, 
unless it can be shown that the divine enactment by which their mem- 
bership in the Church was once recognized has been annulled by the 
authority of God. 

That the premises in this argument may be rendered indubitable, we 
proceed, first, to show that infants were embraced in the Abrahamic cov- 
enant, and were by the appointment of God recognized as members of 
the Church established in the family of that patriarch, and signed and 
sealed as such by the rite of circumcision. God spoke thus to Abra- 
ham: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you 
and thy seed after thee; every man-child among you shall be circum- 
cised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall 
be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight 
days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your gen- 
erations. ... And the uncircumcised man-child whose flesh of his 
foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; 
he hath broken my covenant.” Gen. xvii. 10-14. 

Upon this subject we consider it needless to multiply quotations 
The point before us is a very plain one. The position we here take, 
we believe, is universally admitted. Indeed, it cannot be denied. It 
is this, that infants, both male and female, were admitted by the cir- 
cumcision of the males into the covenant relation to God, as members 
of the Church of God, from the establishment of that Church in Abra- 
ham’s family down ts the coming of Christ. 

II. We proceed, in the next place, to show that the covenant made 
with Abraham, and the Church established in his family on the basis of 
that covenant, were substantially THE SAME COVENANT AND THE SAME 
CHurcu more fully unfolded and continued under the gospel dispen 
sation. 


Ch. xiii.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—3TS SUBJECTS. 955 


It is readily admitted that the gospel, as set forth in the New Testa- 
ment, reveals a new dispensation of religion; but the question is, Does 
it exhibit an essentially new Church? We affirm that it does not. 

What, we demand, constitutes the essential identity of the Church? 
Is it necessary that it be the same in every particular circumstance per- 
taining to it? Surely not. By this rule nothing belonging to this 
world preserves its identity for a single day; for all things about us 
are subject to continual mutations. The human body is constantly 
changing, yet the babe of a day old maintains its essential identity up 
to old age. A political government may undergo numerous important 
modifications, yet it may continue the identical government for a suc- 
vession of years, or even for centuries; just so, the Church may pre 
serve its essential identity while it passes through a variety of fortunes. 
The government of Great Britain, or of the United States, may expe- 
rience a variety of changes—it may change its chief ruler, its ministry, 
its administration, and measures of policy; yet still, while its constitu- 
tion and governing power remain essentially the same, it is the same 
government. 

With these general principles before us, we will examine the Script- 
ures touching the identity of the Church from the days of Abraham to 
the present time. 

First, we notice the appellations given to the Church in ancient times. 
God styles the descendants of Abraham his “ people,” his “sheep,” his 
“vine” or “vineyard,” his “children,” his “elect” or “chosen,” his 
“own,” his “sons and daughters,” and his “Church.” St. Stephen 
terms the Jewish people in the days of Moses the “Church”: “This is he 
that was in the Church (é««yyaia) in the wilderness,” etc. Acts vii. 38, 
David uses similar language: “In the midst of the Church (kahal—éx- 
kAnoia) will I praise thee.” Ps. xxii. 22. In confirmation of the same 
position, St. Paul says: “ Unto us was the gospel preached, as well as 
unto them.” Heb, iv. 2. And again: “They did all eat the same spir- 
itual roeat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank 
of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.” 
1 Cor. x. 4. And Christ says: “Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and 
he saw it, and was glad.” John viii. 56. 

The identity of the Jewish Church with that of the gospel is also 
manifest from the words of Christ to the Jews: “Therefore I say unto 
you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a na- 
tion bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Matt. xxi. 43. Read the whoie 
parable upon which this text is the comment, and then say, What 
* kingdom” was to be “taken from” the Jews and “given” to the Gen 


956 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B 


tiles? If it was not the Church, what else could it have been? The 
passage is susceptible of no other interpretation. The “kingdom of 
God” taken from the Jews was identical with the “kingdom” given to 
the Gentiles; hence the Jewish and Christian Churches are essentially 
the same. 

St. Paul exhibits the Church of God under the emblem of an “olive- 
tree.’ This he borrows from Jeremiah, who, speaking of the Jewish 
Church, says: “The Lord called thy name, A green olive-tree, fair, and 
of goodly fruit; with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire 
upon it, and the branches of it are broken.” Jer. xi. 16. 

In reference to the rejection of the Jews and the admission of the 
Gentiles into the Church under the gospel, St. Paul comments as fol- 
lows: “For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the 
world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? 
For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root be 
holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches be broken off, 
and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert graffed in among them, and with 
them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree; boast not 
against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but 
the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that 
I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, 
and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God 
spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God; on them which 
fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his good- 
ness; otherwise, thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they 
abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in; for God is able to graff 
them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree which is 
wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive- 
tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be 
yraffed into their own olive-tree.” Rom. xi. 15-24. 

The scope of the apostle’s reasoning is so plain here that it cannot 
be misunderstood by an intelligent, unbiased person. The Jews were 
originally embraced in Church relation with Abraham and the heads 
of the Jewish Church, who are represented as the “ first-fruit” which 
was “holy ”—that is, they were consecrated, or set apart in a sacred 
Church relation, represented under the emblem of a “good olive-tree.” 
From this tree they were “ broken off because of unbelief.” Into this 
same tree, or into the same covenant relation and Church privileges, 
the believing Gentiles were ingrafted. But did this rejection of the 
unbelieving Jews destroy the primitive Church of God into which they 


Ch. xiii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 957 


had been taken? By no means. The unfruitful branches “were broken 
off,” but the original stock remained. The “good olive-tree” yet stood 
firm, and into the same stock the Gentiles were ingrafted. 

The Gentile Church was formed, not by the planting of an original 
tree, not by a new Church organization from the foundation, but by 
the bringing of new materials upon the old foundation. The estab- 
lishment of the Christian Church was not the erection of a new house, 
but the removal of “the middle wall of partition,” that both Jews and 
Gentiles, according to God’s original purpose and the promise made to 
Abraham, might dwell together as one “household of faith” in that 
same divinely constructed edifice which was “built upon the founda- 
tion,” (not of the apostles alone, but) “ of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.” Eph. ii. 20. 

Now, we demand, unless the New Testament Church is a continua- 
tion of the original Church established in the family of Abraham, es- 
sentially the same, though under a change of dispensation, how is it 
possible to place any sensible construction upon the language of St. 
Paul in the passage presented? We confidently affirm that the passage 
admits of no other interpretation; and if so, does it not follow that 
as infants were by divine appointment received into the Abrahamic 
Church, therefore they still retain the right of Church-membership de- 
rived from the original charter, and consequently they have a right to 
baptism. The only possible way to escape this conclusion will be to 
show that the law of God conferring upon infants, in the days of Abra- 
ham, the right to covenant and Church privileges has been repealed 
under the gospel; but this never has been, and, as we are sure, never 
can be done. 

III. As another link in our chain of argument, we proceed to show 
that BAPTISM CAME IN THE ROOM OF CIRCUMCISION. 

For one thing to be admitted as a substitute for or in the room of 
another, it is not necessary that they be the same i every particular 
and circumstance; for then the two would be identical, and the idea of 
substitution would be an absurdity. It is enough if they occupy the 
same essential position, and serve the same purpose in reference to their 
most important particulars. 

That the sacrament of the “Supper” is in the room of the “ Pass- 
over” will not be disputed. They are both feasts to be regularly kept 
up by the people of God; they both have a spiritual import expressed 
under emblems; they were both designed to assist the faith and pro- 
mote the spiritual improvement of the worshipers; they both pointed 
to the same great sacrifice—“ the Lamb of God, which taketh away 


958 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


the sin of the w:rld;” yet they differed in various particulars, and 
these points of difference were precisely of such character as the nature 
of the two dispensations would naturally indicate. 

The gospel is peculiarly contradistinguished from the Mosaic insutute 
as well as from the patriarchal religion by its greater degree of mildness 
and the extension of its privileges; so it is with the “Supper” as com- 
pared with the “Passover.” In the one, was the bloody offering of the 
slain lamb and the partaking of a full meal; in the other, is simply the 
contrite and believing heart with the “bread” and the “wine.” The 
one is vertainly done away; and the other, ordained in its room and 
stead, is to be perpetuated “alway,” showing “the Lord’s death till he 
come.” The one looked through the dim distance to a Messiah to come; 
the other, to Calvary, to him who had already come, and died for the 
sins of the world. 

As the “Lord’s-supper” is related to the “Passover,” just so is “bap- 
tism” to “circumcision.” The analogy in the case is almost perfect. 
Baptism, as compared with circumcision, is milder in its requirements, 
and more extended in the application of its privileges. In the one, we 
see a bloody and painful rite; in the other, the pure fountain of bap- 
tismal water. In the one, the Jews only, as a nation, are concerned; 
in the other, the mission is to “all the world,” to “every creature.” In 
the one, the requirement only referred to males, and the eighth day was 
specifically designated as the time for the observance of the rite; in the 
other, both sexes were included, and all days, and times, and seasons, 
were alike sanctioned and allowed. Thus it appears that although bap- 
tism differed in several particulars from circumcision, yet, in all these 
points of difference, the change from the one to the other is only such as 
the peculiar characteristics of the gospel would naturally indicate. 

But we now inquire for the evidence sustaining the position that bap- 
tism 13 in the room of circumcision. 

1. They are seals and signs of the same covenant. 

In the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul, speaking of Abraham, Says: 
“He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the 
faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the 
father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that 
righteousness might be imputed unto them also; and the father of cir- 
cumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also 
walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had 
being yet uncircumcised. For the promise, that he should be the heir 
of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but 
through the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law 


Uh. x1in.| CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 959 


be heirs, fuith is made void, and the promise made of none effect... . 
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the prom: 
ise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, 
but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of 
us all. (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,)” 
Rom. iv. 11-17. . 

The account here given of circumcision is susceptible of no sensible 
solution, unless we interpret it to teach that circumcision occupied, in 
connection with the ancient Church, precisely the same position that is 
filled by baptism under the gospel. It is here a sign and a seal, but of 
what? Was it a sign and seal of the Sinaitic covenant? Did it par- 
take of the nature of the ceremonies of the Mosaic ritual? Did it 
merely ratify the divine promise to the Jews of the temporal mercies 
of Canaan? Surely no such construction is admissible. It sealed 
“the righteousness of faith,” not that of the law; even the righteousness 
which Abraham had, “ yet being uncircumcised.” It was a seal of the 
covenant under which Abraham was “justified by faith,” “that he 
might be the father of all who believe” under the gospel. 

Was circumcision the initiatory rite of the Church in the days of 
Abraham and Moses? so was baptism in the days of Peter and of 
Paul. Was circumcision a sign or token of visible membership in the 
Church of God, and of covenant relation to him? so is baptism. Was 
circumcision an emblem of moral cleansing and purification? so is 
baptism. Did circumcision point to the remission of sins by the atone- 
ment of Christ, and to regeneration and sanctification by the Spirit? se 
does baptism. Circumcision, all admit, has passed away. It ceased as 
the gospel was established; but baptism now occupies the same position, 
means the same thing, sesis the same covenant, the same righteousness, 
and is a pledge of the same spiritual benefits. If baptism be not in the 
room of circumcision, then we ask, Where is now the initiatory rite of 
the Church? where is the seal of “the righteousness of faith”? where 
is the external badge to distinguish the children of Abraham? They 
are not to be found; and the Church is left with no initiatory rite, no 
seal of the covenant, no external pledge, confirming to the children of 
Abraham the gracious promise of the glorious inheritance of the spirit- 
ual Canaan. 

But it is said by some that “the Abrahamic covenant was only a 
Jewish grant, and promised only temporal mercies.” This position is 
too unscriptural to be admitted. Adopt this theory, and what becomes 
of the promise to Abraham—‘ [ will make thee the father of many 
nations,” and “in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed ”’? 


960 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


Does this language indicate merely temporal mercies to the Jews alone? 
No, verily; it embodies the great gospel charter of salvation to all the 
world upon the condition of faith in Christ. We urge the inquiry, 
What has become of the Abrahamic covenant? Shall we be told that 
it has passed away with “the law of commandments contained in ordi- 
nances,” “Christ having nailed it to his cross?” St. Paul hath triumph- 
antly refuted this position. Hear his language: “And this I say, that 
the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that 
it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be 
of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by 
promise.” Gal. iii. 17, 18. 

Now, we demand, what is the argument of the apostle here? He 
was maintaining against the Judaizing teachers that the Gentiles were 
embraced in the Abrahamic covenant, and consequently were entitled 
to the privileges of the gospel Church. But how does he reason? 
Plainly thus: The “covenant that was confirmed before of God in 
Christ” was the covenant with “Abraham,” which was confirmed by 
the “seal of circumcision.” This covenant “the law cannot disannul ;” 
and why? Because it did not take its existence from the law, but was 
given “to Abraham four hundred and thirty years” before the giving 
of the law; and as it did not derive its existence from the law, so nei- 
ther can it be dependent on the law for the continuance of that exist- 
ence. The law, with its shadows and ceremonies, may “wax old” and 
“vanish away,” being fulfilled in Christ; but not so the Abrahamic 
covenant which preceded it. This covenant confirmed unto Abraham 
and his seed all the rich and endless blessings of the everlasting gospel. 
Of this covenant, circumcision was the seal up to the coming of Christ. 
Under the gospel, the seal is changed; circumcision is done away—it 
now “availeth nothing.” But.is the covenant disannulled? It stands 
in all its force; it has lost nothing of its importance and value. The 
Sinaitic covenant may perish, and with it the peculiar national and tem- 
poral immunities of the Jewish people; but while the oath of God 
stands firm, the Abrahamic covenant shall remain unshaken on its 
foundation, undiminished in its blessings, and undimmed in its luster. 
And this is the covenant by which the Church of God originally arose 
into being; it has been the great unfailing charter of that same Church 
in all ages, even from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to David, from 
David to Christ, and shall continue such, not only till the wandering 
and outcast tribes of God’s ancient people shall be brought back with 
the “fullness of the Gentiles,” and all nations shall be blessed in the 


Ch. xiii. CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 961 


Redeemer, but till the consummation of the last achievement of Heaven’s 
redeeming scheme. 

If, then, as we are compelled to admit, the Church, as to its essential 
identity, the covenant, confirming the chartered blessings of salvation, 
and the premise, securing to believers the heritage of eternal life, all 
remain unchanged, and these same blessings, once sealed and pledged 
by circumcision, are now sealed and pledged by baptism, does it not fol 
low that baptism has taken the place of circumeision ? 

The argument here presented in favor of infant baptism may be 
briefly stated thus: The Church of God is essentially the same Church 
now that it was when God commanded that infants should be admitted 
into it as members. God has never authorized the repeal of that com- 
mand; hence it is still in force; consequently, infants are now entitled 
to membership in the Church. But membership in the Church of God 
can now only be conferred through the initiatory rite of baptism; there- 
fore, as infants are entitled to Church-membership, they have also a 
right to baptism. 

Again, substantially the same argument may be stated in another 
form, thus: 

The Ab ahamic covenant and that of the gospel are the same; 
God once ordained that all, upon entering “pon this covenant rela- 
tion with him, should receive the sign and seal of circumcision. What 
was once confirmed by the sign and seal of circumcision is now by 
divine appointment confirmed by the sign and seal of baptism ; there- 
fore baptism has come in ihe room of circumcision. Infants by di- 
vine appointment had a right to circumcision; but baptism having 
come in the room of circumcision, therefore they have a right to 
baptism. 

Again, the Church of God is essentially one in all ages. God has en- 
acted that infants constitute a part of that one Church, and that enact- 
ment has never been repealed ; therefore infants are still a part of that 
Church. All who compose the Church have a right to all its ordi- 
nances which they are capable of receiving; but baptism 1s an ordi- 
nance of the Church which infants are capable of receiving; therefore 
infants have a right to baptism. 

IV. We now proceed to examine some plain passages of Scripture 
found in the New Testament, bearing upon the question before us. 

The opposers of infant baptism have clamored long and loud for 
some “explicit warrant” for this practice. “ Baptism,” say they, “is a 
positive institute, therefore we cannot admit the application of this ordi- 
nance to infants without a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ Bring us a direct 


61 


962 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


comiuand from the Bible, or a plain statement of the fact that the 
apostles baptized infants, and then we will admit them to the ordi- 
nauce.” 

Suppose we were to admit that Christ has not, in so many words, ex- 
plicitly commanded the baptism of infants, and that it is not directly 
authorized by any unquestionable apostolic example, would the pro- 
priety of infant baptism be thereby disproved? Are we to reject from 
our creed and practice every thing for which we cannot produce an ¢x- 
press Scripture warrant? Some observations have already been made on 
this point, but a few additional remarks seem to be pertinent in this con- 
nection. The masterly production of the Rev. Peter Edwards on Bap- 
tism, with all who will read it, sets the question here under review for- 
ever at rest. He demonstrates most conclusively the fallacy of the 
Baptists in their reasoning on the subject of “explicit warrant” for in- 
fant baptism. 

The substance of the reply to this subterfuge of the Baptists may be 
briefly stated thus: 

The argument proves too much; therefore nothing. Any reasoning 
which proves hat all admit to be false must be fallacious, and cannot 
in fairness be adopted by any party. All concede the propriety of ad- 
mitting females to the ecmmunion of the “Lord’s-supper,” and yet the 
same argument here urged against infant baptism would most unques- 
tionably exclude them. Female communion is as destitute of any “ex- 
plicit warrant” from Scripture as infant baptism can be supposed to be, 
even by its opponents. 

Mr. Edwards affirms: “1. That, according to the principles and 
reasoning of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no 
right at all to the Lord’s-table. 2. That the Baptists, in opposing in- 
fant baptism and defending female communion, do shift their ground, 
contradict themselves, and prevaricate most pitifully. 8. That, accord- 
ing to their principles and mode of reasoning, God had no Church in 
this world for at least fifteen hundred years.” 

We remark that it is admitted by all that both baptism and the 
Lord’s-supper are positive institutes; hence it is obvious that any rea- 
soning against infant baptism, founded on the fact that it is a posi 
tive institute, will be equally applicable to the Lord’s-supper. Now we 
affirm that it is impossible to prove the right of females to the Lord’s- 
supper by “explicit warrant.” This never has been, and never can be 
done; yet all admit that they have that right. If, then, they have 
that right without “explicit warrant,” how can we reject infants from 
baptism, another positive institute, merely for the lack of an “ explicit 


Ch. xiii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 968 


warrant”? Jn other words, if the right of infants to baptism and the 
right of females to communion are both proved by the same mode of 
reasoning, we cannot, without manifest inconsistency, admit female com- 
munion and reject infant baptism. But female communion can only be 
proved by inferential testimony ; hence, it follows that, if infant baptism 
can be proved by a similar kind of testimony, if we admit the one, we 
must also admit the other. 

Although the proof of infant baptism, already presented, or which 
may yet be exhibited, may not be of that class strictly comprehended 
by the term “explicit warrant,” yet we maintain that it is equally sat- 
isfactory and convincing. 

1 We now call attention to our Saviour’s language in reference to in- 
fants: “And they brought young children to him, that he should touch 
them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when 
Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the 
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the 
kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive 
the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And 
he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed 
them.” (Mark x. 13-16.) Again, we read, “And Jesus, perceiving 
the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, and said 
unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth 
me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me.” 
(Luke ix. 47, 48.) And, again, it is recorded, “And they brought unto 
him also infants, that he would touch them; but when his disciples saw 
it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer 
little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the 
kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive 
the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein.” 
(Luke xviii. 15-17.) 

(1) Our first remark in reference to these passages is, that there can 
be no doubt that these were real infants that were brought to Christ; 
that is, infants in regard to age. This is plain from the fact that our 
Lord “took them up in his arms.” 

(2) To receive one in the name of Christ is to receive him as belong- 
ing to Christ—as in covenant relation and visible union with him—asa 
member of that body, or Church, of which he is the head. 

(3) The phrase, “ kingdom of God,” here evidently means the Church 
of God on earth, and not the heavenly state. This is clear from the 
fact that it cannot be said of all children that they are members of the 
Church in heaven ; for they might live to maturity, die in their sins, and 


964 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2. 


perish everlastingly. Hence, children are here recognized as members 
of the gospel Church on earth by our Lord himself, 

(4) The phrase “of such is the kingdom of God,” or “of heaven,” 
as St. Matthew records it (Matt. xix. 13-15), cannot, as some sup- 
pose, mean merely that “the kingdom of heaven” is composed of per- 
sons of a child-like disposition. Such construction would reduce our 
Lord’s reasoning to nonsense; for how can the fact that adults of a 
child-like disposition are members of the Church, or belong to the 
“kingdom of heaven,” furnish any reason why children—infants—should 
be brought to Christ for his blessing? But if infants have a covenant 
relation to Christ, as connected with his gospel Church on earth, then 
there is propriety in saying: “Suffer little children to come unto me, 
and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” ‘The rea- 
son for suffering infants to come to Christ must not be found in others, 
but in the infants themselves ; for the Saviour has placed it there. 

(5) As it is manifest, according to the most obvious construction of 
our Saviour’s language, that he here recognizes infants as connected 
with the gospel Church, it follows that they are entitled to baptism. 

2. St. Paul affirms that “all our fathers were under the cloud, and all 
passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
and in the sea.” (1 Cor. x. 1, 2.) 

We readily admit that the baptism here spoken of by the apostle was 
not the Christian baptism, distinctively so called ; yet it was a scriptural 
baptism, so recognized by the inspired apostle. Turn now to Exodus, 
the twelfth chapter, and you will find that these “fathers” who were 
“haptized unto Moses,” embraced “six hundred thousand men, beside 
children, and a mixed multitude.’ These “ children,” of course, em- 
braced children of all ages—infants, as well as older children ; for the 
Israelites took all their households with them. Here, then, we have re- 
corded in the New Testament one clear example of infant baptism. The 
fact cannot be denied. We do’ not, however, rely upon this example 
of infant baptism as furnishing our proof of that ordinance in the 
Christian Church ; we only refer to it as a refutation of the oft-repeated 
boast that there is no example of infant baptism recorded in the Bible. 

3. We know not how to construe our Lord’s grand commission to his 
apostles without finding in it an express command to baptize infants. 
This commission has been more than once quoted for different purposes, 
We will not here repeat it. It is enough to say that in this commission 
the apostles are commanded to “ disciple and baptize all nations.” That 
the word padnretoare, here rendered “teach,” means to “ proselyte,” or 
to “disciple,” no scholar will deny. As the text is rendered in our ver- 


Ch. xiii.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 965 


sion, Matthew is made to be guilty of a tautology inconsistent with 
his character as a writer. Christ is said to conmamand the apostles to 
“teach all nations;” and then, in the next verse, to repeat the same 
command, “teaching them,” etc. In the Greek of this text there is 
no tautology. In the nineteenth verse, the word used by the apostle 
means, as we have said, “disciple all nations,” or make proselytes of 
them. In the twentieth verse Matthew does not use the same word 
he had used in the nineteenth verse, but d:ddoyorrec, from diddoxe, to 
teach, The import of the command is, “Go disciple all nations ;” but 
how? Plainly, by first “baptizing them ;” and then, as they may be 
able to receive it, “teaching them,” etc. 

Now, the question with which we are directly concerned is this: Are 
infants included as a part of the “all nations” here mentioned? Most 
assuredly, we reply, they are; for it takes both sexes, all classes, all con- 
ditions, and all ages, to constitute the nation. But the apostles were 
commanded to “baptize all nations,” and infants are a part of “all na- 
tions ;” therefore, the apostles were commanded to baptize infants. 

The logical conclusion here arrived at cannot be escaped by entering 
the plea that, “as infants are incapable of being taught, hence they 
ought not to be baptized.” It would be fallacious reasoning to argue 
that because there are impediments in the way of executing one com- 
mand, therefore it is wrong to obey another command in the way of 
which there are no impediments. 

The apostles could neither “ go into all the world ” at once, nor “preach 
to every creature” at once, There were impediments in the way. The 
plain, common-sense construction is this: all divine commands, and all 
parts of the apostles’ commission, should be obeyed just as soon and as 
fully as the nature and circumstances of the case admit. No impedi- 
ment in reference to one duty can release from obligation in reference ta 
another. 

How, we ask, may we reasonably suppose the apostles would under- 
stand this commission? They were all Jews, strongly prejudiced in 
favor of the religion and customs of their nation. For centuries past 
that people had been familiar with a religion whose uniform polity, and 
that too originating in divine appointment, had recognized infants with 
their parents as members of the Church—the only Church God had 
ever organized in the world. They were familiar also with the custom 
of inducting Gentile proselytes—the children, with their parents—into 
the Church by the same sacred rite. How, then, we repeat, would they 
naturally construe the terms of their commission? Would they ever 
dream that they were to “disciple” only the adult portion of “all na 


906 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iv. B. 2 


tions”? Had they been told that children were no longer to dwell with 
their parents in covenant and Church relation to God, would not their 
Jewish training and prejudice have revolted at the idea? 

That the apostles could have understood their mission as not includ- 
ing the infants as a part of the “ nations,” we helieve to be a moral im- 
possibility. If this be so, the Saviour knew it when he gave the com- 
mission ; then it will follow either that Christ intentionally deceived the 
apostles, or he gave them authority to “disciple,” or admit into Church 
relation the infants of believing parents. The former supposition is im- 
possible, therefore the latter must be true; and if so, we cannot escape 
the conclusion that we have here a divine command for the baptism of 
the infant chitaren of believing parents, 

5. We now notice the proceedings of the apostles in the execution of 
their commission. 

In his sermon at Pentecost, St. Peter opened the gospel kingdom to 
the Jews. After having instructed his convicted hearers to “repent 
and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” 
promising them “ the gift of the Holy Ghost,” he gives, as a reason for 
their compliance, the following fact : “ For the promise is unto you, and 
to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
our God shall call.” (Acts ii. 38, 39.) 

We now inquire, does this passage contain any intimation that in- 
fants are to be recognized as sustaining any connection with the gospel 
Church? That we may understand this text, we must know to what 
promise the apostle refers. As a clue to this inquiry, we remark that 
it must be some promise in which, Jirst, the Jews and their children were 
specially interested; secondly, it must be some promise in which the 
Gentiles were also interested, and to which they were to be called. Where 
shall we find such a promise? 

The Baptists, to escape the consequence that would result to their 
system by the admission that the apostle here referred to the great 
promise connected with the Abrahamic covenant, have entered the plea 
that the allusion of St. Peter, in this place, is exclusively to the promise 
of Joel ii. 28, 29, which he had quoted in the commencement of his 
discourse. It is true that, so far as the effusion of the Holy Spirit is 
concerned, the promise of Joel had already been referred to as record- 
ing the prediction whose fulfillment had just been witnessed. But in 
the thirty-ninth verse the apostle refers to a promise, not to explain the 
fact of the miraculous descent of the Holy Ghost, but to encourage his 
convicted and distressed hearers to “ repent and be baptized.” The word 
“for,” in the commencement of the thirty-ninth verse, connects directly, 


Ch xiii.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 967 


mot with the promise of Joel, but with the preceding verse, “ Repent 
and be baptized,” etc. Why should they “repent and be baptized?” 
“ Por (ydp—because) the promise is unto you, and to your children, and 
to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” 

It is most certain that the direct reference of the apostle must have 
been to some other promise than that of Joel; for he (Joel) refers only 
to adults, while Peter says “to you,” adults, and to “your children.” 
The inspired apostle could not have blundered. He must have re- 
ferred to a promise containing all the items included in his specifica- 
tions. If no such promise could be found, we should certainly be puz- 
zled to vindicate the accuracy of the apostle’s quotation; but as it is, 
nothing but blinded prejudice in favor of a theory can hide from our 
view the promise in question. 

After reading the language of Peter in this place, we have only to 
turn to Genesis, the seventeenth chapter, and beginning at the seventh 
verse, we may find the noted promise quoted by the apostle in almost 
the exact words, and embracing the specifications in full. St. Peter 
says, “unto you and to your children.” The promise reads (Gen. xvii. 
7), “To be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee.” There is here 
a complete harmony in phraseology. In the one we read, “unto thee 
and thy seed;” in the other, “unto you and to your children.” But 
there is not only a correspondence in terms, but also in subject-matter ; 
each refers to the great covenant of grace, and also to a rite of initia- 
tion into the Church under that covenant. In the one that rite was 
circumcision ; in the other, baptism. 

Look at the circumstances of the speaker and hearers on this memor- 
able occasion, and how is it possible that either the one or the others 
could have understood these terms—“ thee and thy seed,” “you and your 
children” —in any other sense than that of implying parents and their 
infants? That the words in Genesis, where the promise is issued, em- 
braced infants, Baptists themselves will not deny ; and if so, Peter could 
not have quoted that promise in so nearly the exact words, and then 
change it in its import in a matter so sacred to the heart of every Jew 
as was the covenant Church relation of his children, without a word of 
comment concerning that change, or even an intimation that it had 
been made. And stranger still is the hypothesis that that prejudiced 
and bigoted people, who were ever ready to “wrangle for a rite, quarrel 
for a fast, and almost fight for a new moon,” could have so quiescently 
witnessed the excision of their infant children from the covenant Church 
of God, and yet not a murmur from their lips be heard on the subject, 
either at Pentecost, when Peter first announced baptism as the rite of 


968 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


initiation under the new dispensation, or at any time subsequently, amid 
all their Judaizing clamors! The supposition is incredible. Then, we 
demand, do we not here find, in the words of the apostle, a satisfactory 
Scripture warrant for infant baptism ? 

If it be contended that “the promise here is not to infant children, 
but only to adult posterity,” to this we reply that such a construction is 
contradicted by the fact in the case. The Jews always understood it as 
applying to their infants at eight days old, and practiced upon it ac: 
cordingly for centuries. 

Again, if it be said that “the latter clause of St. Peter’s address— 
“even as many as the Lord our God shall call’—limits the promise ex- 
clusively to the ‘called, and consequently it could not embrace infants,” 
to this we reply that the apostle makes no such limit. Those whom he 
addressed were the actually “called.” In reference to them he says, 
“the promise is to you.” But he does not stop; he goes on—“and to 
your children ;” that is, the children of those addressed. ‘The plain con- 
struction of the language is this: “'The promise is unto you and to your 
children, and to all that are afar off,” and to their children, “even as 
many as the Lord our God shall call,” and to their children. 

The promise was, unquestionably, that embraced in the Abrahamia 
covenant, extending the gospel tender of salvation to the Gentiles who 
were “afar off,” and who were to be “ called,” with their children, into 
communion and covenant fellowship with the Jews and their children, 
in the bosom of that same original Church of God, from which the 
Jews, as a nation, for their unbelief, were now to be “broken off,” as 
unfruitful “branches” of the “good olive-tree.” 

Therefore we have the most indubitable evidence from the passage 
under review that infants, under the new economy, are placed in the 
same relation to baptism as they were to circumcision under the old. 
The language of Peter is almost precisely the same as that of the prom- 
ise referred to in Genesis. In the one place the promise is connected 
with circumcision, and all who shared the promise received the rite. 
In the other place, the promise is connected with baptism, and all who 
share the promise should receive the rite. But infants are connected 
with the promise in both instances; and from Abraham up to Christ 
they shared, with their parents, the rite of circumcision. Hence it is 
clear that, as infants are still, as much as ever, connected with the same 
covenant promise, they are entitled to Christian baptism. 

6. The baptism of several households, under the apostolic administra- 
tion, will, when the several instances are closely examined, furnish strong 
ground for believing that the apostles baptized the children with the 


Uh. xiii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 969 


parents, upon the conversion of the latter. In the cases of “ household ” 
baptism recorded, we do not claim that there were certainly infants in any 
of those families. There may or may not have been, so far as we have 
any direct evidence. We think it probable that there were. But what 
we do claim in reference to this subject is, that the apostles seem to have 
acted upon the principle that parents were to bring their children with 
them into the Church, according to the long-established Jewish practice. 

The first case of this kind to which we refer, is that of Lydia and 
her household. “And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of pur- 
ple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us; whose heart 
the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of 
Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, 
saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my 
house, and abide there.” (Acts xvi. 14, 15.) 

In this brief account notice several particulars : 

1. “ Lydia” and “her household” were baptized. 

2. Various particulars are specified in reference to the piety and con- 
version of Lydia. She “worshiped God,” she “heard” the apostles, 
“the Lord opened” her “ heart,” she “ attended unto the things spoken,” 
she said, “If ye have judged me to be faithful,” ete. 

3. There is not one word in reference to the piety or conversion of 
Lydia’s household. 

Now, if her “household” consisted of adults, why so many items 
about her conversion, and not a syllable in reference to the conversion 
of her “household”? Admit that her household were children who 
were baptized on the faith of their parent, and all is natural and easy; 
otherwise it is inexplicable. ; 

Another case of household baptism is that of the jailer and his house. 
(Acts xvi. 30-35.) 

1. When the jailer, convicted and trembling, inquired, “Sirs, what 
must I do to be saved?” the apostle replied, “Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” No intimation 
that faith was required of his house. How natural this, if the apostle 
intended that his children were to be admitted to the Church by bap- 
tism om the faith of their father! But if his house consisted of adults 
who were to act for themselves, the language seems inappropriate, and 
not sufficiently explicit for the occasion. 2. The jailer “ was baptized, 
he and all his, straightway.” Yet there is not a word about faith being 
required of any but the jailer. If it be objected that the apostle spoke 
the word to “all that were in the house,” and that the jailer “ rejoiced, 
believing in God with all his house,” hence they were all adults, to this 


970 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


we reply, although it be admitted that there were adult members of 
the “house” who heard the word and “rejoiced, believing in God,” in 
company with the jailer, yet this does not necessarily exclude infants 
from being also embraced in the “house,” and being baptized. It is 
not said that none received baptism, but such as heard, believed, and re- 
joiced. The record of the baptism is in a separate verse, and simply 
states that the jailer “was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Here 
there is no restriction of baptism to such as believed. Nor is there any 
proof that all the “house” believed. It cannot be disputed that the 
phrase translated, “and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house,” 
might have been more accurately rendered thus, “and he, believing in 
God, rejoiced with (or over) all his house.” Hence, there is still no 
proof that all the “house” were adults; but there is explicit testimony 
that the jailer and all his were baptized. 

Several other “ household” baptisms are mentioned in the New Testa- 
ment; but enough has been said to show that the style of the apostles, 
in speaking of the baptism of parents and their households, is perfectly 
natural, and such as we might reasonably expect, if they proceeded or 
the principle of receiving children with their parents into the Church ; 
but if otherwise, the apostles’ account of their own administration was 
well calculated to mislead the Jewish mind. 

V. The historical argument for infant baptism we consider entirely 
conclusive and satisfactory. 

Tertullian, who lived about two hundred years after the birth of 
Christ, is the first man of whom Church-history furnishes any account 
who, in any shape, opposed infant baptism. But when we notice his 
reasons for opposing it, his opposition is an argument rather for than 
against it. He had imbibed the superstitious notion that “ baptism was 
accompanied with the remission of all past sins, and that sins committed 
after baptism were peculiarly dangerous.” On this ground, and this 
alone, he advises the postponement of baptism, not only in the case of 
infants, but also in that of young persons generally, and even young 
widowers and widows, till they advance to a mature and settled state of 
life, beyond the period of youthful passion and temptation; and num- 
bers who embraced the same error actually deferred their baptism till 
old age or a death-bed. 

The next opponents of infant baptism of whom we hear were the 
followers of Peter de Bruis, in France, about twelve hundred years after 
Christ. These were an inconsiderable fraction of the Albigenses, who 
had departed from the faith of that body. But they opposed infant bap- 
tism on the ground that they considered infants incapable of salvation 


Ch. xiii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 971 


The next society of Anti-pedobaptists, and, indeed, the fust who ad. 
vocated the tenets of modern Baptists on the subject, arose in Germany, 
in the sixteenth century; thus it appears that for at least fifteen hun- 
dred years there was no society of Christians heard of who opposed in- 
fant baptism on the ground of its wanting apostolic authority. 

On the other hand, the positive testimony for infant baptism is in- 
dubitable. 

Origen, a Greek father of the third century, speaks as follows: “Ac- 
cording to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants, 
when, if there were nothing in infants which needed forgiveness, the 
grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous.” 

Again, “For this cause it was that the Church received an order 
from the apostles to give baptism even to infants.” 

Cyprian, a Latin father of the third century, presided over a council 
of sixty-six bishops, held at Carthage. Fidus, a country pastor, in- 
quired of this council, not whether infant baptism was proper, but 
whether, as in circumcision, it ought to be always deferred till the child 
was eight days old? The following is Cyprian’s reply: “Cyprian, and 
the rest of the bishops who were present in the council, sixty-six in 
number, to Fidus, our brother, greeting: As to the case of infants— 
whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three 
days after they are born, and that the rule of circumcision is to be ob- 
served, that no one should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth 
day after he is born, we were all in the council of a very different opin- 
ion. As for what you thought proper to be done, no one was of your 
mind ; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God is to 
be denied to no human being that is born. This, therefore, dear brother, 
was our opinion in the council: that we ought not to hinder any person 
from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to us all. 
And this rule, as it holds for all, we think more especially to be ob- 
served in reference to infants, even to those newly born.” (Cyprian, 
Epist. 66.) Here, then, we have the unanimous decision of a council 
of sixty-six bishops, not mooting the question whether infant baptism 
was the universal practice of the Church (that is taken for granted), 
but whether it is necessary to postpone it till the eighth day. 

Chrysostom, a Greek father of the fourth century, speaks of infant 
baptism thus: “ But our circumcision—I mean the grace of baptism— 
has no determinate time as that (meaning circumcision) had, but one that 
is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or 
one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made without 
hands.” (Hom. 40, in Genesin.) 


972 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2. 


Augustin, one of the most learned men of his time, who flourished 
a little more than three centuries after the apostles, had a controversy 
with Pelagius, a very learned heretic, about original sin. Origen wrote 
to Pelagius thus: “ Why are infants baptized for the remission of, sina 
if they have no sin?” ‘To which Pelagius replies thus: “ Baptism ought 
to be administered to infants with the same sacramental words which 
are used in the case of adult persons.” “Men slander me as if I de- 
nied the sacrament of baptism to infants.” “I never heard of any, not 
even the most impious heretic, who denied baptism to infants; for who 
can be so impious as to hinder infants from being baptized ?” 

Again, Augustin, referring to the Pelagians, says: “Since they grant 
that infants must be baptized, as not being able to resist the authority 
of the whole Church, which was doubtless delivered by our Lord and his 
apostles, they must grant that they stand in need of the benefit of the 
Mediator.” Again, he remarks, “The custom of our mother-Church 
in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor accounted needless, 
uor believed to be any thing else than an ordinance delivered to us from 
the apostles.” 

Here, then, is Augustin, familiar with the writings of all the fathers 
before him, a man of unsurpassed erudition in his day, and Pelagius, a 
man of great talents and learning, who had enriched his mind with in- 
formation gathered from extensive travel—these men both testify that 
they never saw or heard of one, whether Christian or heretic, who de- 
nied the baptism of infants! They lived only about three hundred 
years after Christ. Can it be that they were ignorant as to the facts, 
or that they designedly deceived the world? And if not, what, but the 
most invincible prejudice, can prevent any one from believing that. in- 
fant baptism had been the universal practice of the Church from the 
days of the apostles? 

We have presented, from Church-history, but a brief outline of the 
testimony that might be adduced in favor of infant baptism ; but to the 
unprejudiced mind we think it amounts to evidence of the most conclu- 
sive and satisfactory character. To our mind it carries irresistible con- 
viction. In three centuries from the apostles’ time, many changes had 
occurred in the Church—many abuses had entered—but that so im- 
portant and so serious a change as the introduction of infant baptism 
should have been made so soon, and become the universal practice of 
the Church, and yet no one ever hear, or read, or speak of the marvel- 
ous revolution is utterly incredible. 

In the language of an excellent writer (Dr. Miller), we add, that 
“when Origen, Cyprian, and Chrysostom, declare not only that the bap- 


Oh. xiii.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS SUBJECTS. 973 


tism of infants was the universal and unopposed practice of the Church 
in their respective times and places of residence; and when men of so 
much acquaintance with all preceding writers, and so much knowledge 
of all Christendom, as Augustin and Pelagius, declared that they never 
heard of any one who claimed to be a Christian, either orthodox or heretic, 
who did not maintain and practice infant baptism—to suppose, in the 
face of such testimony, that the practice of infant baptism crept in 
as an unwarranted innovation between their time and that of the apos- 
tles, without the smallest notice of the change having ever reached their 
ears, I must be allowed to say, of all incredible suppositions, this is one 
of the most incredible. He who can believe this must, it appears to 
me, be prepared to make a sacrifice of all historical evidence at the 
shrine of blind and deaf prejudice.” 

But infant baptism can well afford to dispense with all this historic 
testimony, and its foundation remain firm and unshaken. It grounds 
its authority upon the appointment of God, in connection with the ever- 
lasting covenant with “Abraham and his seed,” and the explicit law of 
God, embracing infants as members of his Church. The same Church 
still exists—the same law was never annulled. But Christ and his 
apostles fully recognized both the real identity of the Church and the 
right of infants, under the new dispensation, to share the berefits of 
the same abiding covenant of grace. The promise and oath of God 
can never fail; and while these remain unchanged, infants, with their 
believing parents, shall ever share in all the rights, privileges, and bene- 
fits of the glorious kingdom of Him in whom “all the families of the 
earth shall be blessed.” 


974 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIII. 


Question 1. Shoulce we reject every 
thing in religion for which we can- 
not find an express precept? 

2 What kind of testimony is often as 
satisfactory as direct proof? 

3. How can it be shown that infants, by’ 
express command of God, were ad- 
mitted into his Church ? 

4. How can it be proved that the Abra 
hamic covenai:t and the gospel cov- 
enant are the same? 

5. How can it be proved by the testi- 
mony of Christ that the gospel 
Church and that established in the 
family of Abraham are the same? 

6. And how by the testimony of St. 
Paul? 

7, How can it be proved that baptism 
came in the room of circumcision? 

8 Wherein do these two rites agree, and 
wherein do they differ? 

3 Of what was circumcision the sign 
and seal ? 


10. 


Li: 


And of what is baptism the sign 
and seal ? 

How is it proved that the Abra- 
hamic covenant did not pass away 
with the Mosaic ritual ? 


. How is it shown that infant baptism 


necessarily follows from the ad- 
mission of the identity of the Abra- 
hamic Church with that of the gos- 
pel? 


. What is the argument from our Sav- 


iour’s language in reference to in- 
fants? 


. How is it proved that infants were 


baptized unto Moses? 


. How is infant baptism proved from 


the apostolic commission ? 


. And how from Peter’s language on 


the day of Pentecost? 


. And how from household baptisms? 
. And how from Church-history? 
. Is the argument from Scripture alone 


conclusive and satisfactory ? 


Ch. xiy.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 975 


CHAPTER XIV. 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 


Is imMERSION the only proper mode of Christian baptism? Upon 
this question there has been much unprofitable controversy. For sev- 
eral centuries past there has been known in the history of the Church 
a sect called Anabaptists, Anti-pedobaptists, or Baptists, who have 
strenuously contended that immersion is essential to baptism; and have 
closed the door of their communion against all unimmersed Christians, 
refusing to recognize any such as members of the visible Church of 
Christ. But for the fact that a portion of professed Christians have 
carried their views upon this subject to such an extreme as necessarily 
to produce a painful and pernicious schism in the body of Christ, we 
would deem the discussion of this question of scarcely more importance 
than that of the attitude of the body in the Lord’s-supper, or in public 
prayer. We are free to admit that, while the advocates of exclusive 
immersion have often transcended the bounds of Christian charity, not 
to say republican toleration, in their ridicule and denunciation of all 
who believe and practice differently from them on the subject of bap- 
tism, there has sometimes been exhibited too much stringency and sec- 
tarian bias on the opposite side. 

It is difficult to account for the fierce and long-continued conflict 
that has been waged upon the mode of baptism without coming to the 
conclusion that it is one of those minor questions connected with the- 
ological polemics, concerning which divine inspiration has not seen 
proper to furnish us explicit and positive testimony. Believing as we do 
on this question, we must admire the profound wisdom and Christian 
charity of the Discipline of our own Church on the mode of baptism: 
“ Let every adult person and the parents of every child to be baptized 
have the choice either of immersion, sprinkling, or pouring.” We 
think it must be admitted by the candid and unprejudiced mind that, 
after close and thorough investigation, no explicit and positive testimony 
can be found in the Scriptures prescribing either immersion, sprinkling, 
or pouring, as the only proper mode of water baptism. We may find @ 


976 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


large preponderance of probable or presumptive evidence in favor of one 
particular mode derived from facts, circumstances, analogies, allusions, 
etc.; and this may rationally satisfy the mind, and give to one mode a 
decided preference, but we cannot find positive and undoubted proof 
that either immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, is the only proper mode 
for the administration of the ordinance. 

The limits of this work will not allow us to aim at any thing farther 
than a presentation of a concise view of the subject in reference to its 
prominent features. Extended as has been this controversy, the Script- 
ure arguments, pro and con, may all be derived from the following 
SOUrCES : 

1. From the meaning of the Greck words used to express baptism. 

2. From the Scripture instances of baptism. 

3. From Scripture allusions to baptism. 

I. The word employed in the Greek Testament to express the action of 
baptism is Barrrigw, which comes from the root Bdrrw. It is contended 
by immersionists that these words and their derivatives used in Sceript- 
ure for bapusm always express immersion, and can never signify sprink- 
ling or pouring. On the other hand, Pedobaptists maintain that the 
words in question, though they frequently do express immersion, yet 
often signify sprinkling or pouring. From this it is clear that, if 
either party could establish their own position to the satisfaction of 
their opponents, the controversy would be ended; for the positions here 
assumed by the respective parties are perfectly conclusive on the ques- 
tion when satisfactorily sustained. Observe, the point at issue is not 
whether baptism means immersion, or whether immersion is its primary 
meaning; but is immersion the only meaning of baptism ? 

To decide this question, so far as the words referred to in the Greek 
Testament are concerned, an array of Greek lexicons has been paraded. 
Scapula, Hedericus, Schleusner, Schrevellius, Parkhurst, Suidas, Wahl, 
Robinson, Groves, Greenfield, Donnegan, and others, have been quoted. 
The immersionists have very satisfactorily proved by the testimony of 
all these witnesses that Bamrigw means to immerse, and by several of 
them that to immerse is its primary meaning; but this has not ended 
the dispute. Indeed, as contended by Pedobaptists, the point at issue 
has not yet been reached. We farther inquire of these witnessing lexi- 
cons whether Barrigw has any other meaning besides immersion. They 
al] respond in harmony: “ Yes, it has several meanings.” What are 
they? we demand. Several of them speak at once: “It means to wash, 
to wet, to moisten, to dye, to tinge, to purify, to cleanse, to sprinkle.” We 
noticed, as these witnesses were deposing, that a few remained silent 


Ch. xiv.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 977 


while some of the definitions were pronounced; but in uttering the defi- 
nition “to wash,” every voice was heard in full and perfect harmony. 
“Enough!” cried the Pedobaptist, “it means to wash. You all agree 
in this; then it cannot always mean to immerse.” 

Allow us to add that a moment’s reflection will show that to immerse 
expresses a specific action which cannot be performed by pouring or 
sprinkling, but to wus expresses u generic action which may be per 
formed alike by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling ; hence we conclude 
that, as all the lexicons agree that the Greek word Barrigw not only 
means to immerse but also to wash, and as washing may properly be per- 
formed by sprinkling or pouring as well as by immersion, therefore we 
can derive no evidence from the mere import of the Greek term used 
in the New Testament for that ordinance that immersion is the only 
proper mode of administering it. 

It should also be remembered, in connection with this etymological 
argument, that there are several places in the New Testament in which 
the Greek word for baptize and its derivatives cannot mean immer- 
sion. 

“And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat 
not.” Mark vii. 4. Here the word rendered “wash” is Barriowvta:— 
baptize—a variation of Barzigw. Who believes that the Jews immersed 
themselves habitually before eating? “And when the Pharisee saw it, 
he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner.” Luke xi. 38. 
Here the word for “ washed” is éGarrrio@n, from Barrigw. Surely no one 
supposes that the Pharisee expected our Lord to immerse himself, but 
simply to wash his hands. 

The fact that the “baptism of the Holy Ghost” was unquestionably 
performed, not by immersion, but by pouring, as we shall fully show in 
its proper place, is an unanswerable refutation of the position that Bar- 
lw slways means immersion, and nothing else. 

IJ. We proceed to notice some of the Seripture instances of baptism. 

1. First, we call attention to the baptism of the “fathers unto Moses 
in the cloud and in the sea,” spoken of by St. Paul (1 Cor. x. 1, 2). 
On turning to the account of this baptism, as recorded hy Moses, we 
find that, when the Israelites crossed the sea, it was on “dry land”— 
they passed over it upon “dry ground;” hence the notion that they 
were there ond then immersed is utterly preposterous. In what mode, 
then, could they have been baptized? If we had no clue to the solu- 
tion of this question farther than the Mosaic history, we might feel that 
we were involved in perplexity. But how admirably does one script- 
ure ¢ften explain another! The Prophet Asaph has left us a comment 

62 


978 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


on the recurl of Moses. He explains that “the clouds poured out 
water” upon the Israelites as they crossed the Red Sea (Ps. Ixxvii. 
17); hence, whatever may be our conclusion as to the mode of Chris- 
tian baptism, it is certain that this Mosaic baptism was administered by 
pouring. Such is the testimony of the Bible; for “the clouds poured 
out water ;” and this demonstrates also that baptism does not always 
mean immersion. We may conjecture and speculate as much as we 
please about “the clouds being above the Israelites, and the sea, as walls, 
on each side enveloping them, as it were, in an immersion ;” but still 
the Scripture affirms that they were on “dry ground,” and that they 
were baptized by powring. From these facts there is no escape. Surely, 
to find immersion in this case will exhibit a wonderful feat of imagina- 
tion. 

2. “The baptism of John” is also appealed to by immersionists as 
furnishing proof that there is no proper baptism but immersion. 

The argument is this: “John baptized in Jordan, and also in Enon 
near to Salim, because there was much water there;” hence it is con- 
cluded he must have baptized by immersion. 

That the Greek preposition év, here translated in, always means in 
will not be contended. It may mean at, by, with, or near to; and the 
context must determine the sense. In Matthew iii. 6, it is said that 
John “baptized in Jordan ;” but in the eleventh verse of the same 
chapter, John says: “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; 
but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, . . . he shall baptize 
you with the Holy Ghost.” Here the same preposition éy is used both 
before “ water” and “ Holy Ghost,” and our translators have rendered 
the preposition, in both instances, with instead of in; hence nothing as 
to the mode can be proved by the preposition. But an argument of 
much force may be derived from the manner in which John connects 
his water baptism with our Saviour’s baptism of the Holy Ghost. These 
baptisms are here presented in such connection that, in the absence of 
proof to the contrary, to conclude that both were not administered in 
the same mode would be most unwarranted. But the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost was unquestionably performed by pouring; therefore the 
rational inference is that John baptized in the same way. As the dis 
ciples were not dipped, plunged, or immersed, into the Holy Ghost, but 
the Holy Ghost descended or fell upon them, even so we may conclude 
that John did not dip, plunge, or immerse, the 1aiultitudes into the 
water, but that he poured or sprinkled the water upon them. As in 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost the influence descended upon or was 
applied to the subjects, even so, if there is any analogy in the case, in 


Oh. xiv.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 979 


the baptism of John the water, or element, was applied to the subject 
of baptism, and not the subject to the element. 

In John i. 28, we read: “These things were done in Bethabara be- 
yond Jordan, where John was baptizing.” Here the same preposition 
év is used before “ Bethabara ;” but Bethabara was not a river, but a 
house—the word means a house of passage—and that house was not in 
the River Jordan, but “beyond Jordan.” Now if év before Jordan 
proves that John baptized in Jordan, and therefore must have im- 
mersed, according to the same logic, év before Bethabara would prove 
that John baptized in a house, and therefore not by immersion. The 
truth is, the preposition proves nothing on either side as to the mode. 
The true sense of the preposition here is probably at, or near to; and 
then John baptized at or near to Jordan, and at or near to Bethabara. 
The probability is that Bethabara was the house at which he made his 
home while baptizing, and that he selected a position thus contiguous to 
the River Jordan for the convenient accommodation of the great mul- 
titudes of people and their beasts, and that he baptized them in the 
house, in the yard, in the neighborhood, “in the wilderness,” or at, or 
near to, or in the river, as circumstances might render it convenient. 

But it is said John baptized “in Enon, near to Salim, because there 
was much water there.” “Enon” signifies the fountain of On—a mere 
spring, sending forth a rivulet; or probably such springs were numerous 
in that vicinity ; for the words, ddara moAAd, rendered “much water,” 
mean many waters—that is, there were many springs, or rivulets, in that 
region. This was necessary for the comfort of the multitudes, by what- 
ever mode they may have been baptized. And as “much water,” or 
many waters, would have been a comfort and convenience sufficient to 
induce John to select that locality as the theater of his operations, inde- 
pendently of immersion, or even of baptism in any form, surely it must 
be very inconsequential reasoning to infer from this fact alone that 
John immersed. So far as the text is concerned, he may or may not 
have immersed. 

But an overwhelming proof of immersion, in the estimation of Bap- 
tists, is found in the record of our Lord’s baptism by John: “And Jesus, 
when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water.” Matt. iii. 16. 

The whole argument for the immersion of our Saviour in this pas- 
sage depends upon the meaning of the Greek preposition a7, here ren- 
dered “out of.” Now it cannot be denied that the primary meaning of 
dnd is from instead of “out of,” and that, in very many instances, it is 
s translated in the New Testament; thus: “A certain man went down 
(dd) from Jerusalem.” Luke x. 30. 


980 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv. B 2 


“When le was come down (d7d) from the mountain.” Matt. viii. 1. 
Our Saviour may have been immersed, for any thing we certainly know 
to the contrary; but nothing can be more fallacious than the attempt 
to prove it by this passage. “Coming up from the water,” would be the 
most literal and natural translation. 

But if there was any connection between the baptism of water and 
the descent of the Holy Ghost immediately following it, this would fur- 
nish an argument against immersion; for the Saviour was not immersed 
into the Holy Spirit, but the “Spirit of God” was seen “descending like 
a dove, and lighting upon him.” 

3. The Pentecostal baptism is the next instance to which we refer. 

But here we find a twofold baptism—that of water, and that of the 
Holy Ghost. The latter, being not only the first in importance, but, in 
this instance, the first in occurrence, shall be first considered. . 

(1) John says of Christ: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, 
and with fire.” Matt. iii. 11. Before his ascension, our Lord said to his 
apostles: “Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence.” Acts i. 5. In the second chapter of The Acts we find the rec- 
ord of this glorious baptism; but by what mode was it administered ? 
This is the question now before us. 

St. Peter testifies on the occasion, saying: “This is that which was 
spoken by the Prophet Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, 
saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.” Again, he 
adds: “ He hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear.” And, in 
speaking of the descent of the Holy Ghost on that occasion, St. Luke 
records that “it sat upon each of them.” In speaking of the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost at the house of Cornelius, St. Peter says: “And as 
I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us af the beginning. 
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy 
Ghost.” Acts xi. 15,16. In giving the history of this baptism, St. 
Luke uses the same form of words: “The Holy Ghost fell on all them 
which heard the word.” Acts x. 44. 

We here find several forms of speech used expressive of the mode 
in which baptism was administered: the Holy Ghost “sat upon them,” 
it was “poured out” upon them, and it “fell on them.” It is never once 
intimated that they were dipped, plunged, or immersed, into the Holy 
Ghost. Indeed, it is certain that this baptism was not by immersion, 
but by pouring. This is the united testimony of the Prophet Joel, of 
St. Luke, and of the Apostle Peter. It is one of the striking exhibi- 
tions of the strange power of prejudice in fuvor of a darling theory, 


Ch, x1v.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 981 


that any man of common understanding, with these palpable Scripture 
proofs before his eyes, can have the temerity to stand up and contend 
that this baptism was administered by immersion. And how passing 
strange must we view the fact that, after perusing this combination of 
inspired testimony, setting forth, as explicitly as it is in the power of 
language to do, that this baptism was performed by pouring, some per- 
sons without a blush can attempt to argue that “ baptism always means 
tnumersion, aud can mean nothing else!” 

We are apprised of but two methods resorted to by immersionists to 
ward off the force of the argument we have just presented, 

First, an effort is made to prove that the Pentecostal baptism of the 
Holy Ghost was an immersion, because the “sound filled all the house” 
where the disciples “were sitting ;” hence it is argued that, as the sound 
filled the house, and as the disciples were in the house, therefore they 
were immersed in the sound. ‘This plea is rendered perfectly ridiculous 
when it is remembered that the disciples were not said to be baptized 
with the sound, but with the Holy Ghost. Surely the sound was not the 
Holy Ghost. The sound filled the house, but the Holy Ghost “sat upon” 
the disciples; hence this effort to prove immersion only exhibits the 
desperate shifts to which the advocates of an erroneous theory may be 
driven. 

Secondly, failing to prove immersion by an argument founded on the 
fact that the sound filled the house, the next effort is to set imagination 
to work to conjure up a kind of figurative immersion. We are told 
that “the apostles were so entirely overwhelmed and surrounded by the 
influence of the Holy Ghost, which came so abundantly upon them that 
it might be called an immersion.” Wonderful logic! That is, the pour- 
ing out of the Spirit was so abundant that it was not poured at all; the 
disciples were dipped, plunged, or immersed into it. The plain truth 
is that the Scriptures, in so many words, declare that the “baptism of 
the Holy Ghost” was performed by pouring. We may imagine and 
explain as much as we please, but it would certainly be wiser, as well 
as more modest, to suspect that our theory may be wrong than flatly to 
contradict the Bible. 

(2) We next notice the Pentecostal baptism of water. All we learn 
of this baptism we derive, first, from the fact that Peter commanded 
them to “repent and be baptized,” connecting therewith the “ gift” or 
baptism “of the Holy Ghost ;” secondly, the historian informs us that 
“they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day 
there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” 

It is admitted that there is no positive proof here against immersion ; 


982 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


but it must also be admitted that there is no proof of any kind what 
ever for it. But we think there are, in the circumstances connected 
with this baptism, several strong presumptive arguments against im- 
mersion. 

Look at the intimate manner in which water baptism is connected 
with that of the Holy Ghost—the one promised upon the condition of 
the proper reception of the other, and then following it in immediate 
succession. Remember, farther, how constantly water is used in both 
Testaments as an emblem of cleansing, or moral purification. Look 
upon these facts, and who can help believing that the water of baptism 
is an emblem, or sign, ** that moral cleansing effected by the influ- 
ence of the Holy Ghost: But if water baptism is an emblem of spir- 
itual baptism, would we not, in the absence of proof to the contrary, 
expect both to be administered in the same mode? That the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost was not by immersion, but by pouring, is put be- 
yond a doubt; therefore the reasonable conclusion is that water bap- 
tism was administered in the same way. 

Again, look at the shortness of the time allowed for this baptism, 
and all the circumstances connected with it, and the probabilities will 
appear greatly against the mode of immersion. From the third hour 
of the day, or nine o’clock in the forenoon, to the ninth hour, or three 
o’clock in the afternoon, was all the time that could have been allowed 
for both the preaching and the baptizing; for three in the afternoon 
was the settled hour for the regular public prayer. At this the apos- 
tles attended, and we may be assured that this great solemnity was not 
neglected on this occasion. Not more than six hours, then, could have 
been occupied by the wonderful events recorded in the second chapter 
of The Acts. Peter preached a long discourse, using “many other 
words” beside what we have on record. The other apostles also 
preached to the thronging crowds. Fifteen nations are named, who all 
heard the gospel, “every man in his own tongue, wherein he was born.” 
After this, time must be allowed for each convert to make his confes- 
sion to the satisfaction of the apostles; then the believers must be sepa- 
rated from the multitude; the place for immersion must be sought out; 
permission must be obtained to use that place—pool, pond, river, or 
whatever it was. Taking all the difficulties of the case into the account 
(many more than we have taken time to name), is it probable that the 
apostles could have immersed the “three thousand” in so short a time? 
or, if they could, is it reasonable to suppose that all the necessary ar- 
rangement, preparation, marching to the place of immersion, etc.. would 
secur, and no account be taken of it? And yet we hear not ene word 


Ch. xiv.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODR. 958 


in regard to the immersion, the preparation, the place, or any thing 
else about it; and why this silence about a matter that must have pro- 
duced a great commotion? The most rational conclusion is, that no 
immersion was performed, but that the apostles sprinkled the people, 
or poured the water, after the manner of Jewish priestly purification, 
and in the easiest and most convenient method. That these “three 
thousand ” were then and there immersed involves too many improba- 
bilities to be accredited without evidence, but of that there is none; 
hence we conclude that this baptism can furnish us no proof of immer- 
sion. 

4. The baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch has generally been relied on 
by immersionists as one of their most conclusive proofs on the subject. 

“And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water; 
and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be 
baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou 
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they 
went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he 
baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the 
Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip.” Acts viii. 836-39. 

The evidence here claimed for immersion is based entirely upon the 
expressions—“ they went down into the water,” and “when they were 
come up out of the water.” 

If the Greek preposition ele, here rendered “into,” and éx, rendered 
“out of,” do not imply immersion, it is plain we can find no proof of 
that mode in this text. Tt will not be contended that elg always means 
into, or that é« always means out of; and if such be not their invaria- 
ble import, it may not be in this case; hence the evidence for immer- 
sion founded upon this source cannot be conclusive. As Mr. Watson 
has observed: “Ele is spoken of place, and properly signitics at, or it 
indicates motion toward a certain limit; and for any thing that appears 
to the contrary in the history of the eunuch’s baptism, that limit may 
just as well be placed at the nearest verge of the water as in the mid- 
dle of it.” 

That ele frequently, in the New Testament as well as elsewhere, 
means fo cannot be denied by any candid scholar. Peter is commanded 
to “go (el¢) to the sea, and cast a hook.” Matt. xvii. 27. Surely he 
was not to go into, or under, the water. Our Lord, it is written, “ went 
up (el¢) to a mountain.” Did he go into its heart, or under it? 

But it is only wasting time to delay with criticisms about these 
Greek prepositions. Allow, for the sake of argument (which is far 


984 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2, 


from being true), that ei¢ always means into, and é« out of, allow that 
in the instance before us el¢ can mean nothing but into, or even allow 
that it means wnder, what can the cause of immersion gain by this ad- 
mission? It would be as destitute of proof as ever. Indeed, if im- 
mersionists could prove that the preposition here means into, or under, 
in the sense of immersion, they would most effectually overturn their 
own cause. They would clearly demonstrate that Philip did not bap- 
tize the eunuch by immersion. The text reads: “They went down both 
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch.” Now mark, all this was 
done before the act of baptizing commenced. Whatever the act of 
baptizing was, it was something neither synonymous nor simultaneous 
with the “going down to, unto, or into, the water.” Now, if “going 
down into the water” implies immersion, then it follows that “both 
Philip and the eunuch” were already immersed, or under the water, be- 
fore the act of baptizing commenced ; consequently, if baptism means 
immersion, they were already baptized—that is, if “going down into 
the water”? means immersion, then the eunuch was immersed before he 
was immersed, which is a contradiction, or immersion is not baptism, 
which destroys the immersionist’s doctrine. The immersionist must 
either admit that “going down into the water” is not immersion, or that 
immersion is not baptism; for it is certain that the act of baptizing 
was performed after they had gone “down into the water.” Surely it 
must be plain that, as the baptizing was an act subsequent to the going 
to the place at which it was performed, neither the method of going to 
the place nor the character of the place, whether it was in a house or 
in a river, in a wiiderness or in a city, in a palace or in a pool, can deter- 
mine any thing as to the mode of the baptism. I may go up intoa 
house, and then proceed to baptize, either by pouring, sprinkling, or im- 
mersion. The fact of my being in the house would not of itself decide 
the question as to the mode of administration. Even so Philip, with the 
eunuch, “ went down to, unto, or into, the water; and he baptized him.” 
But how he performed this act—whether he dipped the water up in his 
hand or in a cup, and whether he poured or sprinkled it upon him, or 
whether he immersed him once, twice, or three times, and whether he 
did it backward or face foremost—these are questions concerning which 
the text gives us no information. 

There are, however, one or two circumstances connected with this 
transaction which furnish some presumptive evidence against immer- 
sion. The eunuch, at the time Philip entered the chariot with him, 
was reuling a certain portion of Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the Mes- 
siah. In connection with the paragraph he was reading are these 


Ch. xiv.) CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 985 


words: “So shall he sprinkle many nations,” ete. It is said: “Philip 
began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” Now, it 
is clear Philip must have instructed him concerning the duty- of bap- 
tism, or he would not have asked it at the hands of Philip; and if so, 
we can find nothing in the scripture under review so likely to lead to 
discourse on that subject as the verse referred to, “So shall he sprinkle 
many nations,” etc. This passage doubtless depicts the sanctifying 
grace of the gospel with which the nations were to be blessed, and 
which is sacramentally symbolized by the baptismal water. But in 
reference to this subject the prophet does not speak of immersion, but 
of sprinkling. If the prophet had used immerse instead of spruikle, 
and written “So shall he immerse many nations,’ how many immer- 
sionists would now clap their hands over it as a proof of the eunuch’s 
immersion! But as it is, it furnishes presumption in favor of sprink- 
ling. 

Again, the manner in which the eunuch requested baptism is worthy 
of notice. It is said: “As they went on their way, they came unto a 
certain water; and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hin- 
der me to be baptized?” Now the report of all travelers is, that that 
region of country is exceedingly dry, and that there is no stream to be 
found in the route more than ankle deep. Connect this fact with the 
eunuch’s exclamation, “See, here is water,” or, as it is in the Greek, 
‘Behold, water,” and who can help believing that the eunuch had sud- 
denly discovered a spring, or small branch, and with emotion calls the 
attention of the apostle to the fact, and demands the ordinance of bap- 
tism? It is not probable that there was any stream, or pool, there of 
sufficient depth for immersion, and of course the probabilities here ap- 
parent are against that mode. 

5. Next, we notice the baptism of Saul. This transaction is thus re- 
corded by St. Luke: “And he received sight forthwith, and arose, and 
was baptized.” Acts ix. 18. St. Paul, in relating the history of the 
matter, represents Ananias as coming into his presence and addressing 
him, saying: “And now why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” 

Now, we venture the assertion that if a hundred unprejudiced per- 
sons, who had never heard of any controversy as to the mode of bap- 
tism. were, for the first time, shown these scriptures, and asked for a 
verdict as to the attitude of Saul when he received baptism, every one 
of them would arise from the perusal and exclaim, “ He was standing 
on his feet in his room, where Ananias found him.” Circumstantial as 
the account is, recording the fact of his rising to his feet, and then par 


v 


586 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [?. iv. B.2 


taking of refreshments, and being “strengthened” in his weak condi- 
tion of body, yet there is not one word of their going to one of “the 
rivers of Damascus” in search of a place for immersion! Whether he 
walked, rode, or was carried—whether they traveled one, two, or three 
miles, or only a few furlongs—whether Saul endured well the fatigue, 
or fainted by the way—not a hint or syllable about any of these things 
do we hear! Why this silence? The natural and rational conclusion 
is, that no such journey was undertaken or thought of. Right on the 
spot, in the house, where he arose and stood, then and there he was bap- 
tized. This is the rational conclusion from the New Testament history 
of the affair. The word dvaorde, used in both the recitals of the bap- 
tism, literally signifies the act of rising up, or standing up, and, plainly 
as language can express it, denotes the bodily attitude in which the bap- 
tism was received. Hence, if our opinion is to be founded on the Bible 
account, we must set this down as a case in which the probabilities, 
amounting almost to positive proof, are against immersion. 

6. Cornelius, and “hig kinsmen and near friends,” in the city of Ces- 
area, furnish us the next instance of baptism to be considered. The 
account is related thus: “ While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy 
Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” “Then answered Peter, 
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which 
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded 
them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Acts x. 44-48. 

We cannot help perceiving a most striking correspondence between 
this, the first great Gentile baptism, and the Pentecostal baptism of the 
Jews, already noticed. In the one, St. Peter had opened the gospel 
kingdom to the Jews; in the other, he opened it to the Gentiles. In 
both cases the baptism of water and that of the Holy Ghost are so in- 
timately connected as plainly to indicate that there is an important re- 
lation between them. In both instances the Holy Ghost was poured out, 
or fell, upon them. Upon any principle of symbolism, the hypothesis 
of immersion is inadmissible. The purifying Spirit is poured out, which 
would expressly indicate the application of purifying water in the same 
way. But look at the brief history of the case. Peter demands, “Can 
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have 
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” None daring to object, “he 
commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” Is there 
any suggestion to leave the room they occupied? Is there any sugges- 
tion about a pool, bath, pond, river, or any thing of the sort? There 
must be water, for without it there can be no baptism; but is there the 
slightest hint that there must be water enough to immerse them, else 


Ch. xiv.) CHRISLIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 987 


they cannot be baptized? Is there any hesitation, any delay, ay con- 
fusion, by reason of a sudden and unforeseen demand on Cornelius for 
a large and deep body of water? or does not the irresistible impression 
of the scene indicate a demand for a small portion of water for instant 
use? Is there any intimation of any spectacle, any procession through 
the streets of Cesarea—the Roman centurion with near friends, his kin- 
dred, his devout soldiers, and his domestic servants, led by Peter and six 
Jews from Joppa—to a public immersion, all speaking strange tongues, 
and all Cesarea filled with wonder? Nothing of the sort—nothing that 
can be tortured into correspondence with any such ideas, They are the 
growth of other ages—the product of a state of mind far different from 
that of the apostles of the Lord. However great, perhaps unexpected, 
may be the issue of this Gentile baptism, it is plainly the will of God 
that it should be celebrated ; and it is done—done there, then, with water, 
not into it. (Dr. R. J. Breckinridge.) 

All the circumstances of the case seem rationally to preclude the idea 
of immersion. But when we consider the manifest connection in this 
case between the baptism of the Holy Ghost and that of water, the one 
cleansing the soul from the pollutions of sin, and the other symbolizing 
the same by an application of water, and when we also remember that 
the mode of this spiritual baptism was pouring, not immersion—when we 
consider all these things, the argument against immersion is little short 
of demonstration. 

7. The baptism of the Philippian jailer is the last Scripture instance 
of the ordinance we shall notice. The account of this is recorded in 
the sixteenth chapter of The Acts. 

1. It is important to notice that the jail here consisted of two apart- 
ments ; for the apostles were “thrust into the wner prison;” hence there 
was an outer prison. 2. The jailer’s own residence was connected with 
the prison so closely that from his sleeping chamber he could see when 
the doors were open into the “inner prison;” for as soon as he awoke he 
saw that the prison doors were all open. 3. The jailer, springing in 
with a light, brought the apostles from the inner to the outer prison. 
Here the apostles preached, here the jailer was converted, and here, it 
seems, the apostle’s stripes were washed, and the jailer received bap- 
tism. 

But the question is, by what mode was this baptism administered ? 
In the absence of all testimony to that effect, it is certainly unreason- 
able to suppose that in this pagan prison there was any pool or tank 
ready prepared for immersion. Hence, if there was any immersion in 
the case, they must have left the prison and gone out in quest of some 


988 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv..B°2 


river or pond. Some of the presumptions against this supposition may 
be briefly stated. 

1. It is unreasonable to suppose that the jailer, just recovered from 
his terrible alarm about the supposed escape of his prisoners, could have 
been induced, so soon afterward, in violation of law, to lead these same 
prisoners through the city and to the suburbs, or neighborhood, in search 
of river, pool, or pond, for the administration of an ordinance of which, 
till that hour, he had never heard. 

2. It is unreasonable to suppose that the inspired Paul, who so strictly 
enjoined upon all to be “subject unto the higher powers,” and “to obey 
magistrates,” would have been accessory to so palpable a violation of 
law as this night-excursion, on the part of the jailer, would have in- 
volved. 

3. When, in the morning, “the magistrates sent the serjeants, saying, 
Let those men go,” and Paul was informed of the fact, he replied, 
“They have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have 
cast us into prison ; and now do they thrust us out privily? Nay, verily, 
but let them come themselves and fetch us out.” Nor did the apostles 
consent to leave the prison till the magistrates came and legally released 
them. Then “they went out of the prison, and entered into the house 
of Lydia.” 

Now, we demand, can this conduct of the apostles, amid the light of 
the morning, be consistent with the supposition that they had already, 
under the dark cover of midnight, not only left the prison, but wan- 
dered off, none can tell how far, in search of a place for immersion ? 
However men may convict themselves of absurdity in defense of a the- 
ory, let them beware how they thus involve the holy apostles in hypoc- 
risy and crime! Relying on the Bible statements alone, we conceive it 
scarcely possible that the jailer was immersed. 

ILI. SckipruRE ALLUSIONS TO BAPTISM. 

1, That all the dispensations of true religion, the patriarchal and 
the Mosaic, no less than the Christian, referred to and centered in Christ, 
and were intended to develop, with more or less distinctness, the Mes- 
sianic kingdom, cannot be doubted. In the Mosaic economy, where 
scarce a single ceremony or service was without an important signifi- 
cance in connection with the glorious revealments of the plan of gospel 
salvation, who can suppose that the constant and habitual use of water 
and blood was either accidental or unmeaning? For the ratification 
of the Sinaitic law, half the blood of the sacrificial offerings was sprin- 
kled upon the altar, and the rest upon the people. In the performance 
of this sprinkling, Moses said, “ Behold the blood of the covenant which 


oh, xiv.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—\Is MODE. 983 


the Lord hath made with you.” By express statute, the ceremonially 
unclean Jews were sprinkled with the water of purification. Upon the 
great day of atonement the high priest sprinkled blood upon the mercy- 
seat over the ark. 

In addition to all this, look at the striking symbolic announcements 
of the prophets in reference to Messiah’s reign. Hear the language of 
Isaiah: “So shall he sprinkle many nations.” Listen to the yet more 
graphic strain of Ezekiel: “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, 
and ye shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols 
will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit 
will I put within you.” Viewing all these things together, may we not 
expect to find, under the gospel, something of which they were lively 
symbols? If the legal purification, under the former dispensation, was 
manifested by the sprinkling of water upon the people, and the sprink- 
ling of blood upon the altar, how appropriate that, under the gospel, 
the sanctification of the heart should be procured through the “sprink- 
ling of the blood of Jesus Christ,” made efficacious by the outpouring 
of the Holy Spirit, and that the outward symbol of this should be the 
baptismal water | 

Conformable to the same prominent idea are the teachings of the 
New Testament. St. Paul says: “ Ye are come—to Jesus the Mediator 
of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh bet 
ter things than that of Abel.” Heb. xii. 22, 24. 

If, then, all through the law, we find the sprinkling of blood and of 
water so familiarly connected with purification, and, under the gospel, 
the baptism of water so directly associated with the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, how could a Jew, in the absence of direct precept to the 
contrary, fail to conclude that water baptism was intended to symbolize 
that moral cleansing which is effected by the affusion of the Holy Ghost 
and the “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ?” Equally manifest 
must it be that if the one baptism is constantly represented by sprink- 
ling or pouring, the other should be administered in the same way. 
There should be a correspondence between the symbol and the sab 
stance—the external sign and the internal grace. Admitting that water 
baptism is administered by affusion, how striking the harmony between 
the covenant spiritual blessings of redeeming grace and the external 
ceremony by which they are symbolized! Discard sprinkling and pour- 
ing, and institute immersion as the only proper baptism, and how can 
we fail to perceive that much of the harmony and beauty, symmetry 
and coherence, of the external forms and internal grace of the gospel 
system are destroyed, and the types and shadows of the law shorn 


990 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2, 


of their eflicacy and despoiled of their significance as adumbrations of 
“good things to come”! 

2. The next Scripture allusion to which we refer is that in which it 
is contended that baptism is presented as emblematic of the burial of 
Christ. 

This has been prominently urged by immersionists as one of theis 
strongholds. The texts referred to are the following: 

“ Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by 
baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we 
shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our 
old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, 
that henceforth we should not serve sin; for he that is dead is freed from 
sin. Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live 
with him.” Rom. vi. 3-8. 

The same apostle again says: “In whom also ye are circumcised with 
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins 
of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, 
wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation 
of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Col. ii. 11, 12. 

We have been thus full in our quotations of these texts that the con- 
nection may at once be the more distinctly seen ; for it is only necessary 
to observe closely the connection, and the sense will be obvious. The 
first inyuiry here to be made is this: To which does the apostle, in these 
passages, refer—water baptism or spiritual baptism? We take the posi- 
tion that so to construe these texts as to make them refer to water bap- 
tism is one of the most glaring perversions of Scripture of which we 
can conceive. Such a construction would turn the apostle’s beautiful 
argument and illustration into a perfect medley of nonsense and confu- 
sion. That this may be at once apparent, let us inquire what are the 
specific effects of this baptism? 

(1) It produces “ death ”—* buried with him by baptism into death.” 
Now, does water baptism produce death? If so, it must be either the 
death of the body, or the death of the soul “unto sin.” If we say the 
former, then the body must be drowned; if the latter, then water will 
supersede the blood of Christ and the Spirit’s influence. 

(2) This baptism enables us to “walk in newness of life.” “ Even so 
we also should walk in newness of life.” Now, we ask, are we enabled 
thus to walk by water baptism? Nay, but by spiritual baptism. 


Ch. xiv.] CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 99) 


(3) This baptism so plants us in “the likeness of Christ’s aeath,” as 
to cause us to be in “the likeness of his resurrection.” Can water bap- 
tism do this? Can it cause us to die to sin as Christ died on the cross, 
or to lead a new life of obedience, resembling our Saviour’s resurrection 
from the tomb to die no more? 

(4) This baptism crucifies “our old man” (or carnal nature) “ with 
Christ.” Is this the effect of water baptism? Who can believe it? 

(5) This baptism destroys “the body of sin.” Is this the etfect of 
water baptism? Surely it is the “renewing of the Holy Ghost ’’—spir- 
itual baptism—and not water, which can accomplish this work. 

(6) This baptism releases us from the service of sin. “That hence- 
forth we should not serve sin.” What but spiritual baptism can effect 
this deliverance ? 

(7) This baptism produces the circumcision of the heart. “Ye are 
circumcised with the circumcision made without hands.” Now, will 
any one contend that immersion can cireumeise or change the heart? 

(8) This baptism “ puts off the body of the sins of the flesh by the 
circumcision of Christ ;” that is, in this baptism all past sin is pardoned 
through faith in Christ—not by water baptism, but by the influence of 
the Spirit. 

(9) From this baptism we are raised “through the faith of the opera: 
tion of God ;” but from water baptism, by the hands of the minister. 

(10) In this baptism we are “ quickened together with (or through) 
Christ, and we gain the “forgiveness of all our trespasses ” — effects 
which can result only from spiritual baptism. 

Let any reflecting mind ponder seriously upon the effects here enu- 
merated, compare them with the scriptures quoted, and mark how ex- 
plicitly it is taught that they all result from the baptism spoken of, and 
then determine whether or not these are the effects of water baptism. 
He who can believe that water baptism can effect all this mighty moral 
and spiritual renovation may dispense with the “ blood of atonement” 
and the “renewing of the Holy Ghost,” and trust in the water alone as 
his redeemer and sanctifier. To what perversion of Scripture may tho 
devotees of error be driven! 

Nothing can be plainer than the fact that in these passages the apos- 
tle was discoursing of the “ burial” of the “body of sin” by the “ bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost,” and not the burial of our bodies in water bap- 
tism. Of the effects enumerated as resulting from the baptism of which 
the apostle discourses, not the first one can be produced by water bap- 
tism, but every one of them results from spiritual baptism; hence it is 
not the former, but the latter (which was by pouring), of which it is 


992 KLEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B.2 


written, “ We are buried with him by, or in, baptism.” And thus this 
boasted proof of immersion is shown to be imaginary; for it can only 
appear when Scripture is perverted, and so construed as to fied violence 
to its proper connection and obvious import. 

3. When driven from his strongholds, the immersionist, as a last re- 
sort, turns upon his opponent and charges him with the error of hold- 
ing to and practicing three baptisms—sprinkling, pouring, and immersion ; 
while the Bible teaches, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph. iv. 
5. “Now,” exclaims the Baptist, “if immersion be baptism, then 
neither sprinkling nor pouring can be baptism; and if powring be bap- 
tism, neither immersion nor sprinkling can be baptism ; and if sprinkling 
be baptism, then neither immersion nor pouring can be baptism ; and he 
who practices pouring, sprinkling, and immersion, practices three bap- 
tisms ; whereas the Bible allows but one.” 

This charge of inconsistency may seem plausible, but it is, in reality, 
perfectly groundless. It is founded upon a perversion of the text re- 
ferred to. The object of the apostle was not to teach any thing con- 
cerning the mode of baptism; his object was to inculcate the duty of 
Christian fellowship and brotherly love. “Keep the unity of the Spirit 
in the bond of peace.” This is the practical lesson he is enforcing, and 
he urges it on the ground of a sevenfold unity which pervades the Chris- 
tian system. His argument is this, because there is ‘one body, one Spirit, 
one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God,” therefore “ keep 
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” 

There is but one baptism. Ye have not been baptized in the profes- 
sion of different religions, nor yet in the name of different Lords. One 
of you was not baptized in the name of Paul, another in the name of 
Cephas, and another in the name of Apollos; but all have been bap- 
tized in the name of the same Lord—*“ in the name of the Father, and 
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Ye have all this one baptism ; 
therefore “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” As to 
the mode of the ordinance, however much we may prefer the one to the 
others, as the Scriptures have not explicitly prescribed one to the exclu- 
sion of all others, let each one “ have the choice of sprinkling, pouring, 
or immersion.” 


Ch. xiv.) 


CHRISTIAN BAPTISM—ITS MODE. 993 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XIV. , 


QuEsTION 1. What is the doctrine of the 
“Methodist Discipline” as to the 
mode of baptism? 

2. From what three sources is the script- 
ural argument derived ? 

3. What is the Greek word in the New 
Testament for baptism? 

4. How is it defined by lexicographers ? 

5. Does this setile the controversy ? 

6. Can it be settled by the etymological 
argument? 

7. Are there any instances in the New 
Testament in which the Greek 
word for baptism cannot mean im- 
mersion ? and what are they? 

8. By what mode were “our fathers” 
baptized unto Moses? and how is 
it proved? 

9. What is the argument for immersion 
founded on “ John’s baptism”? and 
how is it answered ? 

10. What is the argument for immersion 
founded on the “baptism of our 
Lord” by John? and how an- 
swered ? 

11. By what mode was the baptism of 
the ‘“ Holy Ghost” administered ? 
and how is this proved ? 

12. To what two methods have immer- 
sionists resorted to ward off the 
force of this argument? 


63 
LEYSuso 
vib 
I pa 
(ASL, FH? a 


13, How was the Pentecostal baptism 
of water probably administered ? 
and how is it proved? 

14, What is the argument for immersion 
founded on the baptism of the 
Ethiopian eunuch? and how is it 
answered? 

15. State the argument in reference to 
the baptism of Saul. 

16. In reference to the baptism of Cor- 
nelius and his friends, what is the 
argument? 

17. How were the Philippian jailer and 
his household probably baptized? 
and how is this proved? 

18. How were Lydia and her household 
probably baptized? and how is 
this shown? 

19. What argument against immersion 
is founded on the symbolic allusions 
of the Old Testament? 

20 What is the argument for immersion 
founded on St. Paul’s expression, 
“ Buried with Christ by, or in, bap- 
tism”’? and how is it answered ? 

21. What is the last resort of the immer- 
sionist when driven from hisstrong- 
holds? and how is his charge of 
inconsistency against Pedobaptists 
shown to be groundless ? 


994 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


CHAPTER «XV. 
THE LORD’S‘SUPPER—ITS ORIGIN AND NATURE. 


I. Irs orta1n.—This we give in Scripture language. The inspired 
record is found in the following passages, viz. : 

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and 
brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my 
body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, 
saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament, 
which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, 
I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day 
when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” Matt. xxvi. 
26-29. 

“And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, 
and gave to them, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took 
the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them; and they 
all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new 
testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink 
no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in 
the kingdom of God.” Mark xiv. 22-25. 

“And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles 
with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat 
this passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will not 
any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And 
he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it 
among yourselves; for Isay unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the 
vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and 
gave thanks, and brake it, and gave anto them, saying, This is my 
body which is given for you; this do un remembrance of me. Like 
wise also the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new testament in 
my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke xxii. 14-20. 

The apostolic comment upon this institution is recorded in the follow- 
ing scriptures, viz. : 

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion 


Ch. xv.] LORD’S-SUPPER—ITS ORIGIN AND NATURE. 995 


of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one 
body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread.” 1 Cor. x. 16, 17. 

“For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto 
you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, 
took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 
Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you; this do in remem- 
brance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he 
had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this 
do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as y¢ 
eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he 
come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup 
of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that 
bread, and drink of that cup.” 1 Cor. xi. 23-28. 

II. We next consider the NATURE of this ordinance. 

Having presented from the several evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke, the inspired record of the origin and appointment of this institu- 
tion by our Lord himself, and from the First Epistle to the Corinthians 
the apostolic comment upon the same, we have clearly before us the 
substance of the teachings of Scripture upon the subject. 

The first question here demanding our attention is this: In what sense 
should the phrases, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” be un- 
derstood? The Roman Catholics interpret these words in the most lit- 
eral acceptation; and contend that, by the prayer of consecration said 
over the elements by the priest, the bread is no longer bread, and the 
wine no longer wine, but that they have been converted into the literal 
body and blood of Christ; and thus they originate the absurd figment 
of transubstantiation. But little need be said to evince to the unbiased 
mind that their position upon this subject is both unreasonable and un- 
scriptural. 

1. It is unreasonable. It is a maxim of unquestionable truth, both 
in philosophy and religion, that whatever is palpably repugnant to 
common sense must be false. Now it is clear as any truth can be that 
the prayer of consecration can effect no change in the physical proper- 
ties of the bread and the wine. They are still bread and wine, literally 
and really such, as much after the consecration as before it; and chem- 
ical analysis may readily demonstrate the fact. If so, they are not Mit. 
erally the body and the blood of Christ; and thus it manifestly appears 
that transubstantiation is unreasonable, because repugnant to the dic- 
tates of common sense. Romanists may persuade themselves that they 
believe it; but rea’ly they do not, they cannot. 


996 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


2. Transubstantiation is wscriptural. 

It is a rule of interpretation, admitted by all sound biblical critics, 
that no scripture should be interpreted in a manner contradictory to 
common sense, or plain reason, when obviously susceptible of an inter- 
pretation not liable to such objections. That figurative language is fre- 
quently used in Scripture, none can dispute; and that bread and wine, 
in the phrases under review, were intended by our Saviour as figures, 
emblems, symbols, or representatives, of the body and blood of Christ, and 
not literally such, is the plain obvious construction. How could the 
disciples understand their Lord as teaching them that the bread was 
literally his body broken for them, or the wine literally his blood shed 
for them, when they saw his body yet whole, not nailed to the cross, 
and his blood not yet flowing from his pierced side? Christ said to his 
disciples: “Tam the vine, ye are the branches.” Did they understand 
him as teaching that he was literally but a grape-vine, and they but twigs 
growing upon that vine? St. Paul says, in reference to the Rock that 
followed the Israelites in the wilderness, “That Rock was Christ.’ Was 
Christ a literal rock? The plain interpretation is this: the rock was a 
type, or emblem, of Christ; the vine, in its relation to the branches, jig- 
uratively represented the relation of Christ to his disciples; and so the 
bread and the wine were symbols, or representatives, of the body and 
blood of Christ. ; 

But little better than this error of the Romanists is the doctrine of 
consubstantiation, which teaches that although the bread and the wine 
are not literally the body and blood of Christ, yet that his body and 
blood are literally present with the elements in the Supper, and are Liter- 
ally received by the communicants. 

Among the leaders of the Lutheran Reformation, some—and Luther 
himself was one of them—leaned too far toward transubstantiation. 
They seemed unable to take at once so bold a leap on the subject as to 
escape entirely the errors of the papists. It is true that consubstantia- 
tion, for which they contended, delivered them from the grosser absurds 
ities and the idolatrous tendencies of the system they renounced. They 
did not place themselves in direct conflict with men’s external senses, 
nor were they led to the idolatrous adoration of the bread and the 
wine; but still they leaned too far toward the literal interpretation, 
holding that the communicant did Literally eat the body and drink the 
blood of Christ, which was always, in a manner inexplicable, present 
with the elements. 

Others, led by Carolostadt and Zuinglius, went to an opposite ex- 
treme, attaching no farther import to the words, “This is my body,” 


Ch. xv.) LORD’S-SUPPER—ITS ORIGIN AND NATURE. 997 


and “This is my blood,” than that the elements were merely signs, or 
Jigures, assisting the faith to apprehend the absent body and blood of 
the Lord. This view is in close correspondence with that of the mod- 
ern Socinians. 

The true scriptural view of the subject, as we conceive, lies between 
these two extremes, and was advocated by Calvin, and is now the creed 
of the Protestant Churches generally. While it rejects the literal pres- 
ence of the body and blood of Christ, as held by Luther and the abet- 
tors of consubstantiation, it admits with Carolostadt and Zuinglius that 
the elements are signs, symbols, or figures, of the literal body and 
blood of Christ. But it goes one step farther. It considers the ele- 
ments not only as a sign, but also as a seal of the new covenant. This 
idea appears to be implied in the words of Christ, “This cup is the 
new covenant in my blood ;” and in the words of Paul, “The cup of 
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of 
Christ ?” 

Hence we conclude that, in this ordinance, 

1. No change is effected in the elements; the bread and the wine are 
not literally the body and blood of Christ. 

2. The body and blood of Christ are not literally present with the ele- 
ments, and received by the communicants. 

3. But the elements are signs, or symbols, of the body and blood of 
Christ, serving as a memorial of his sufferings on the cross and a help 
to the faith of the communicant. 

4, The elements also possess a sacramental character, being a divinely 
appointed seal of the covenant of redemption. As the blood of the 
paschal lamb served as a seal of this covenant under the old dispensa- 
tion, pointing the faith of the Israelite to the coming Redeemer, it was 
fit that, as the old dispensation was now to be superseded by the new, 
the seal of the covenant should be correspondingly changed ; hence at 
the conclusion of the last authorized Passover, the holy supper is in- 
stituted, as a perpetual memorial and abiding seal of the covenanted 
mercy and grace of God, till the Saviour “shall appear the second 
time without sin unto salvation.” 


998 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XV. 
V Quesriox 1 In what scriptures is the 
origin of the Lord’s-supper set transubstantiation ? 


/ forth? 5. How may both these theories be re- 
~/2. How do the Romanists understand futed ? 
the terms, ‘This is my body,” and | 6. To what opposite extreme did Zuin- 
“This my blood”? glius and his party go? 
3 What is the correct interpretation of | 7. What is the scriptural view of the 
them? 


V4 Who advocated consubstantiation! 


and wherein does it differ from 


subject ? 


Uh. xvi.] LORD’S-SUPPER—RIGHT TO PARTAKE OF IT. 99Y 


CHAPTER XVI. 
THE LORD’SSUPPER—THE RIGHT TO PARTAKE OF IT CONSIDERED. 


WE next inquire, Who have a ricuT to the Supper of the Lord ? 
We present it as a Bible position, standing forth prominently to 
view, that 


All real Christians—that-is, all-who-are-“the-children-of —God-by-faith 


in Christ Jesus”—have a divine right to membership and communion, 


vast, 

This proposition will be found to contain the principle according to 
which the great question of Christian communion now before us may 
be clearly and satisfactorily settled. Before we bring the proposition 
to bear directly on the question, and exhibit, in all its important as- 
pects, its connection with the subject of Christian communion, we 
should weigh the proposition itself in the balances of the sanctuary. 
We bespeak for it a careful investigation and a fair trial. If it be un- 
sound, let it be at once rejected; but if it be according to the teachings 
of Heaven and the principles of eternal truth, let us plant ourselves 
upon it, as on a sure foundation, impregnable and indestructible as the 
“word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” 

We now appeal to the Scripture testimony to learn who they are 
that have aright to the fellowship of the Church, to the immunities 
and privileges of the house of God, to the communion of the Supper 
of the Lord. If we trace the entire history of the planting of the 
Church, as laid down in The Acts of the Apostles, we shall find in the 
apostolic administration but one invariable practice upon the subject. 
Stch as “gladly received the word,” such as “believed,” not only on 
the day of Pentecost, but on all subsequent occasions, were without ex- 
ception and without delay admitted to the communion and fellowship 
of the Church. This was done tov, not on the ground of their perfect 
agreement in all their views of Christian doctrine, or ordinances, or 
Church order, but solely on the ground of the fact that they were sup 


1000 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


posed to have been made partakers of the spiritual benefits of Chris- 
tianity “by faith in Christ Jesus.” 

It is indeed surprising that there should be thought any plausible 
ground for diversity of sentiment among Christians as to the true basis 
of Christian communion, after we have looked upon the clear and un- 
mistakable apostolic platform exhibited upon the subject in the fif- 
teenth chapter of The Acts of the Apostles. Here we find the apostles 
and elders assembled in solemn council to adjudicate upon the very 
question we are now discussing. "heir decision, and the grounds upon 
which it was based, are committed to record. This record remains as an 
imperishable memorial which should never be overlooked—a light to 
shine upon the pathway of the Church in all succeeding generations. 

The history of the case is this: There arose in the Church of An- 
tioch a dissension on the subject of communion. Certain Judaizing 
teachers from Jerusalem had visited them, and troubled them much 
with some of their close communion principles. They had taught 
them that there was a certain rite, ceremony, or ordinance, which many 
of them had neglected, that was essential to salvation, and of course 
that such as had hitherto neglected this ought not to be admitted to 
the communion and fellowship of the Church. Paul and Barnabas 
opposed strenuously these close communion teachers, and the sectarian 
and schismatic principles they were inculcating. But still, for a com- 
plete and more authoritative settlement of the matter, it was agreed 
that Paul and Barnabas, and some other disciples, should go up to 
Jerusalem, and call the apostles and elders together for the decision of 
the question. We have the record of their decision, and the reasons of 
it. Now we invite special attention to the grounds of this decision. It 

fas a question of communion and fellowship, identical with the very 

question now before us. The question was whether certain Gentiles, 
claiming to be Christians, though they had neglected a certain cere- 
mony which some contended was essential, should be recognized as 
Christians, and admitted to communion. The decision is in favor of 
their admission. But what are the grounds of that decision? What 
are the specific reasons upon which it is based? We answer, They are 
precisely the same that are comprised in the proposition we have laid 
down as the basis of Christian communion, and which we are now en- 
deavoring to establish by Scripture testimony. 

It ought to be strictly noted on this subject that we here have an infal- 
lible, an inspired touch-stone, or clue, for the settlement of the commun- 
ion question, whenever, wherever, or however, it may arise; for if these 
persons, whose right to Church-communion is contested, are admitted to 


Uh. xvi} | LORD’S-SUPPER—RIGHT TO PARTAKE OF IT. 1001 


communion on certain grounds, and those grounds are specifically stated, 
it necessarily follows that in all cases of contested right of communion, 
whatever may be the ground of the objection, the same reasons specified 
in this case would establish a similar right, and require a similar decision. 
But what are these reasons? St. Peter, in pleading the right of these 
Gentiles to communion, declares: “God, which knoweth the hearts, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto 
us.” Here, God is appealed to as a witness for the Gentiles of their 
claim to communion, on the ground that he had “given them the Holy 
Ghost ”—that is, he had conferred on them the spiritual blessings of 
Christianity—they had received the converting power of the gospel— 
“even as he did unto us”—that is, they enjoy the same spiritual relig- 
ion with us; consequently they are entitled to the same Church privi- 
leges. But St. Peter gues on: “And put no difference between us and 
them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Here the plain argument of St. 
Peter is this: these Gentiles are true believers, they are genuine Chris- 
tians, they are “the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus;” con- 
sequently they have a right to the privileges and fellowship of the 
Church. 

Now, we ask, will not the same argument prove the same thing in 
all similar cases? If these have a right to Church-communion because 
“their hearts are purified by faith,” must not all whose “hearts are 
purified by faith,” or all who are “the children of God by faith in 
Christ Jesus,” have a right to Church-communion? Quod erat demon- 
strandum. 

St. Peter still proceeds: “Now, therefore, why tempt ye God to put 
a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we 
were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” Here the argument for 
their right to communion is grounded upon the fact that all are believed 
to be heirs of a similar salvation. 

After St. Peter had closed his argument, St. Paul and St. Barnabas 
next spoke on the same side of the question, and using a similar mode 
of reasoning. They appealed to the fact that God, through their in- 
strumentality, had “wrought miracles and wonders among the Gen- 
tiles.” In other words, they argued, God has conferred upon the Gen 
tiles the spiritual blessings of Christianity, therefore they have right to 
the external privileges and ordinances of the Church. Here, let it be 
remembered, there is not one word about the peculiar notions of these 
persons concerning doctrines and ordinances, about “baptisms and the 
laying on of hands ”—no, nor about any thing else, but the simple fact 


1002 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


of their conversion to God. This, and this alone, was the ground wpon 
which their right to communion was affirmed. This fact no man dare 
deny. 

If we turn our attention to the Apostolic Epistles, we find frequent 
reference to the same platform of communion. St. Paul (see 1 Cor. x.), 
in commenting on the Lord’s-supper, says: “The cup of blessing which 
we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread 
which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For 
we being many are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers 
of that one bread.” We subjoin for the better understanding of this 
passage a few extracts from leading commentators. Dr. Clarke says: 
“As only the one loaf was used at the Passover, and those who partook 
of it were considered to be one religious body, so we who partake of 
the eucharistical bread and wine, in commemoration of the sacrificial 
death of Christ, are one spiritual society, because we are all made par- 
takers of that one Christ whose blood was shed for us to make an 
atonement for our sins, as the blood of the paschal Jamb was shed and 
sprinkled in reference to this of which it was the type. All who join 
together in celebrating the Lord’s-supper, and are partakers of that 
one bread, give proof by this that they are Christians, and have fellow- 
ship with Christ.” Whitby paraphrases as follows: “For we being 
many are one bread, and one body (or, because the bread is one, one 
loaf being broken for us all, we who partake of it being many are one 
body, owning ourselves thereby all members of that body of which 
Christ Jesus is the Head); for we are all partakers of that one bread ; 
and thus you see that by partaking of this Christian sacrifice we own 
ourselves to have communion with the Lord Jesus, and with the whole 
society of Christians.” Macknight paraphrases thus: “The cup of 
blessing for which we bless, is it not the joint participation of the body 
of Christ?” 

In reference to the passage under review, we may remark that it af- 
fords clear evidence, first, that all the disciples of Christ are one body, 
represented by the one loaf. Secondly, that all who belong to that one 
body—that is, all Christians, or believers—have a right to partake of 
that one communion. Thirdly, that all who partake of this commun- 
ion in a proper manner, not only commune with Christ, but with the 
whole body of Christ, or the entire Christian Church. Fourthly, that 
all who have communion with Christ, the Head, have a right to com- 
munion with his entire body, or with the whole Church of believers; 
hence we derive from this passage another proof of the correctness of 
pur position. It clearly demonstrates that all Christians have a divine 


Ch. xvi.] LORD’S-SUPPER—RIGHT TO PARTAKE OF IT. 1003 


right to the communion and fellowship of the Christian Church; and 
this right is based alone upon the fact that they are the children of God. 

In Romans xiy. 1-3, we read as follows: “Him that is weak in the 
faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth 
that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let 
not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which 
eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him.” 

On the third verse, Dr. Clarke remarks: “Both, being sincere and 
upright, and acting in the fear of God, are received as heirs of eternal 
life, without any difference on account of these religious scruples or 
prejudices.” Whitby remarks: “‘God hath received him’—that is, 
into communion with him, viz., by giving them that Spirit which is the 
medium of our union to and.communion with him.” Here we perceive 
a clear recognition of the same basis of communion. A question arose 
in the Church at Rome whether certain professed Christians, who had 
partaken of meat which had been offered in sacrifice to idols, ought to 
be admitted to the communion of the Church. St. Paul decides in 
their favor; but on what ground does he render that verdict? He 
bases it alone on the ground that “God had received them.” No allusion 
is made to ordinances or peculiar notions of doctrine. The fact that 
God recognizes them as his children is presented as the great, the only, 
thing required as an indispensable prerequisite to communion. 

In the twelfth chapter of Romans and the twelfth chapter of First 
Corinthians the Church is represented as “one body in Christ,” and all 
the Christians—that is, all who have been “ baptized by one Spirit,” or 
“made to drink into one Spirit ””—are represented as members of that 
“one body,” and “every one members one of another.” It is com- 
manded that there be “no schism in the body.” So intimate is the 
union and communion here inculcated that all the members are re- 
quired to “have the same care one for another,” and mutually to par- 
ticipate in the sufferings and honors of each other. If “one member 
suffer,” all the members are required to “suffer with it;” if “one mem- 
ber be honored,” all are required to “rejoice with it.” What language 
could be plainer, or more direct to the point in hand, than the above? 
The union and communion of all Christians is here enjoined in terms 
which must imply full fellowship in the closest and the strongest sense 
of the word. 

But again, we ask, what is the ground upon which this fellowship is 
founded? Is it because they harmonize in their views of doctrine, of 
Church polity, or of external forms and ceremonies? Not one of these 
things is so much as named. However important, in view of other 


1004 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P.iv B. 2 


considerations, these things may be when the right and obligaticn of 
Church-fellowship are in question, they are not so much as hinted at; 
but that right and obligation are based wholly and solely upon the fact 
that they are partakers of the spiritual benefits of religion, that they 
are Christians, or members of the spiritual body of Christ. 

The Scriptures might be quoted much more extensively still in con- 
firmation of the same position, but any farther testimony we deem su- 
perfluous. From what has been presented, we persuade ourselves that 
the candid and impartial will readily perceive that the Scriptures 
themselves amply sustain the proposition which we have laid down as 
w basis for the settlement of the great question of Christian communion. 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVI. 


Qcestion 1. On the right to the Lord’s- | 2. What is the argument founded on the 

super, what general proposition is fifteenth chapter of The Acts? 
laid down? 3. What other Bible proofs are pre- 
sented in favor of free cornmunion! 


Ch. xvii] OBJECTIONS TO FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 1005 


CHAPTER XVII. 


OBJECTIONS TO FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 


1. Ir is objectea that “the free communion proposed is impracticable 
because of the diversity of opinion respecting the institution of baptism.” 

The leading principles already established, if duly considered, fully 
refute this objection ; yet the subject will admit of some farther discus- 
sion. A large portion of those who hold to immersion as the only valid 
baptism, contending also that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite 
to the Lord’s-supper, refuse to commune with, or to admit into their 
Churches, any unimmersed persons. In considering this question we 
have no need to discuss the mode of baptism. However that question 
may be decided, it cannot affect the subject before us. The question of 
Christian communion rests on entirely different and distinct grounds. 
The Bible, as we have shown, places the right and obligations of com- 
munion, not on ordinances and ceremonies connected with religion, how- 
ever important in themselves, but on the fact of conversion and adoption 
into the family of God “by faith in Christ Jesus” —on the fact that “God 
has received them.” If it be decreed that all who are within a certain 
house have a right to partake of a rich banquet provided for all the in- 
mates, how ridiculous it would seem for those within the house to begin to 
quarrel with each other about the mode of entrance! If it be admitted 
that the invitation was to all within the house, how utterly absurd would 
it be, when the table is spread, for some to refuse to partake because 
others, acknowledged to be within the house, had not entered in the man- 
ner judged the most proper! To be within the house at the time is the 
only condition required; and that they have entered by some method 
is certain from the fact of their presence within. To contend, therefore, 
either that they are not within the house, or that, although within, they 
have no right to partake, is alike absurd and ridiculous. 

If it be admitted, as we have proved, that it is the duty and privi- 
lege of all Christians to commune at the table of their common Lord, 
how absurd must it be for some to refuse to commune with others because 
certain rites connected with their religion are thought to have been not 


1006 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (P. iv. B. 2 


properly performed! Admit that they are the children of God, and 
their right to commune is at once settled ; deny this, and none can plead 
for that right. 

We may farther argue the right of all Christians to the communion 
of the Lord’s-supper from the origin of the institution itself. It was 
not established by the founder of a sect or party. It originated not 
with any of the ancient Fathers, It was not set up by any of the Popes 
or councils of Papal Rome. Neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin, 
neither Cranmer nor John Knox, neither John Wesley nor Andrew 
Fuller, nor any other reformer or leader of a party, ever pretended t 
have originated this institution, They knew their places—they knew 
the Scriptures better. Hence, we affirm that this is no sectarian or de- 
nominational institution. The very idea of an Episcopalian, a Meth- 
odist, a Presbyterian, or a Baptist communion-table, is absurd and mon- 
strous ; it is a burlesque upon the institution itself! This holy ordinance 
claims paternity in no denomination of Christians. It was instituted 
and ordained by the one Christ and Lord, the Saviour of all his people, 
and for and in behalf of all his followers of every name and order, 
wherever found or however circumstanced. With what propriety, there- 
fore, can any one party or denomination of Christians claim the right to 
exclude any of God’s children from his own table? Who gave them 
that right? Where, in all the book of God, do they find authority for 
this lofty prerogative? Were it a Presbyterian or a Baptist table— 
were it a mere denominational arrangement—had it originated with a 
sect or party, the assumption might be less unreasonable; but, as it is, 
it is perfectly absurd and ridiculous! The scriptures we have adduced, 
establishing the right of all the children of God to the table of the 
Lord, are abundant and explicit. If they do not establish that point 
beyond doubt or cavil it will be difficult to place any sensible comment 
upon them. How, then, we ask, can we admit that any man is a child 
of God, and yet deny him the privilege of partaking of that one loaf 
in the Supper? To proceed thus is not to be guided by the Scriptures, 
but audaciously to push them aside! 

Where, we may well inquire, is any divine authority for any man, or 
set of men, to sit in judgment on the case of others, to determine whether 
they may be admitted or not to the Lord’s-table?’ The apostolic rule 
on the subject is, “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of 
that bread and drink of that cup.” 1 Cor. xi. 28. Paul is not to ex- 
amine Peter; and Peter, John; and John, James, ete. ; but Paul, Peter, 
John, James, and all the rest, must each one examine himself. For self 
examination, in view of the Lord’s-supper, there is express Bible war. 


Uh. xvii.) OBJECTIONS TO FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 1007 


rant; but for brother examining brother, there is none. Whoever asx 
sumes this prerogative has usurped an authority for which he can show 
no credentials. 

We know that close communionists plead that baptism is an indix 
pensable prerequisite to the Lord’s-supper, and that immersion is essential 
to baptism, and that, therefore, they cannot, conscientiously, commune 
with unimmersed persons. 

This plea looks plausible, and if it be sound, it will go far toward 
vindicating them from the charge of inconsistency with themselves. 
But when this argument shall be closely examined, it will be found 
halting on both legs. It is defective in both the premises and conclu- 
sion. First, not to moot the mode of baptism, which is of no conse- 
quence in this controversy, it cannot be proved that baptism is an indis- 
pensable prerequisite to the Lord’s-supper ; but were we, for the sake of 
argument, to admit it, and to admit also that there is no baptism but 
immersion, it would not necessarily follow that no one holding these sen- 
timents could, conscientiously, commune with an unimmersed person 
It is enough for each to be the keeper of his own conscience. 

We shall now endeavor to show the defect in both the premises and 
conclusion in this argument. . First, in the premises, it has been assumed 
that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to communion; but this 
the Scriptures nowhere expressly teach. This fact the close commun- 
ionists are compelled to admit. Were it otherwise, they would long 
since have presented their express Scripture to establish their position. 
But this, I believe, they have never attempted; but they have relied 
solely on inference and deduction. 

Now, as baptism and the Lord’s-supper are both positive institutes, 
and, as Protestants believe, the only divine ordinances of the new insti- 
tution, it would seem passing strange, judging a priori, if there be such 
a connection between these two ordinances that baptism must in all 
cases precede the Supper, that there should be no express precept to 
this effect. Such would be an exceedingly loose method of presenting 
a positive institute. The Mosaic law, which was as the shadow to the 
substance, compared with the gospel, was minute and particular in de 
scribing the persons who had right to the privileges of the Jewish 
temple and altar. But shall we suppose that Christ and his apostles, in 
setting up and ordering the new—the better—the everlasting dispensa- 
tion, have left the matter so loosely described that the persons entitled 
to the immunities of this latter and better house are only to be determined 
by mere inference? 

Again, we think we have amply proved, by express testimony from 


1008 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2. 


Scripture, that all the “children of God by faith” have a right to the 
communion. Consequently, it would follow, if none but the immersed 
have a right to the communion, that no others can be the children of 
God. But this close communionists will not, dare not, affirm. By so 
doing they would unchristianize, and leave to the uncovenanted mercies 
of God, the entire body of the Pedobaptist Churches—yea, the great 
mass of the Church of God—for centuries together. At such a conclu- 
sion the heart of humanity shudders. Close communionists will not adopt 
it; therefore the only alternative left them is either to admit that bap- 
tism is not essential to the communion, or that immersion is not essen- 
tial to baptism. Which will they choose? Will they stoutly set them- 
selves against all the declarations of Scripture showing that all the 
children of God have a right to the communion? Will they deny that 
there are any of God’s children among the millions who, in the succes- 
sive ages of the Church, have lived and died—many of them martyrs 
to the faith—without immersion? Will they give up their cherished 
idea that immersion alone is baptism? or, finally, will they admit that 
their inference, that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to com- 
munion, has been drawn in haste? 

It was a primary and all-important object with our Saviour that all 
his followers should be united in the most harmonious fellowship. 
Hence, had he considered baptism an indispensable prerequisite to that 
fellowship, would he not have rendered the subject so plain that no hon- 
est and sincere disciple, in any age of the world, could ever so far mis- 
take as to suppose he had been baptized when he had not? Would he 
not have taken special pains so to define and explain the matter that 
throughout all coming time “the wayfaring man, though a fool, need 
not err therein”? We cannot reconcile it with our conceptions of God 
as a being of infinite wisdom and goodness, that he has left the great 
mass of his children so much inyolved in doubt and uncertainty on a 
subject so vitally important. 

The close communionist would infer the correctness of his position— 
that baptism must precede the Lord’s-supper— 

(1) First, from the order in which these institutions were originally 
established. 

He argues that “baptism was established prior to the Lord’s-supper, 
therefore no one should be admitted to the Supper till he has been bap- 
tized.” Although this plea was set up by the celebrated Booth in his 
“Apology for the Baptists,” we really cannot help considering it too 
flimsy to merit a serious reply. But lest it might strike others with 
more force than it does us, we pay it a respectful notice. The reas 


i ~ 
a 4 ‘ 
. - G- ; ‘ Ao 


- — i - ” 
LA se é y 


e a 
Ch. xvii.} OBJECTIONS TO FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 1009 


soning is rotten in all its parts. First, the position assumed is false, 
It is not true that the Christian baptism was established prior to the 
Lord’s-supper; and if the reference is to any other baptism, it is foreign 
to the subject. It is the Christian baptism alone of which we are speak- 
ing, and consequently, if any other baptism be referred to in the prem- 
ises, the argument is the most glaring sophism imaginable. If one bap- 
tism be referred to in the premises, and another in the conclusion, then 
the argument would run thus: something called baptism originally pre- 
ceded the Lord’s-supper, therefore something else entirely different, also 
called baptism, should always precede the Lord’s-supper. Who does 
not perceive that there is no connection between the premises and the 
conclusion? You might as well argue that John Jones owes you a shill- 
ing, and that therefore John Smith owes you a shilling. There is about 
as much connection between Jones and Smith as there is between the 
Christian baptism and those baptisms that preceded it. They are no 
more identical than are Jones and Smith. 

John’s baptism preceded the institution of the Supper, and so did the 
baptism our Saviour authorized his disciples to perform at the com- 
mencement of his ministry. John was a mere harbinger. His minis- 
try preceded the Christian dispensation and passed away. His baptism, 
and that of the disciples of Christ before his crucifixion, were “unto 
repentance ;” but the Christian baptism was “in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ””—or more briefly, “into the 
name of Christ.” 

The Christian baptism was instituted by the Saviour after his resur- 
rection from the dead, in his grand commission to the apostles. (Matt. 
xxviii. 18-20.) Without delaying to argue so plain a point, we observe 
that it is only necessary to know that John’s disciples were rebaptized 
when they embraced the gospel, as may be seen from apostolic history, 
and its essential difference from Christian baptism must be admitted. 
(See Acts xix. 1-5.) 

Thus it appears that the argument for the indispensable precedence 
of baptism to the communion of the Supper, based upon the supposed 
priority of the former institution, rests entirely on a false assumption. 
The truth is, the Supper was instituted before the crucifixion, and the 
Christian baptism not till after the resurrection of Christ. When the 
institution of the holy Supper was originally founded, the Christian bap- 
tism had never been heard of on earth. It only existed in the mind of 
Him who knew all things. And of all that company to whom the Sav- 
jour himself administered the holy Supper, though they were a band 
of ministers, not one of them had then received the Christian baptism! 

64 


1010 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. (PL iv, Bod 


And yet it is argued that Christian baptism must, in all cases, precede 
the Supper! Is this following the example of Chr.st? Is it not in- 
verting the order he established? Is it not subverting the order of 
things as they came fresh from heaven, and practicing upon a plan 
directly opposite to the example of him who was the founder of beth 
institutions ? 

It will occur to the reflecting mind that while the advocates of close 
communion, could they have shown that baptism preceded the Supper, 
would thereby have gained nothing to their purpose, yet the establish- 
ment of the fact that the Supper preceded the Christian baptism is 
fatal to the close communion argument. The mere fact that the Chris- 
tian baptism was instituted before the Supper, had such been the truth 
uf the history would not have proved that baptism in all cases must 
precede the Supper. The order of time in which any two institutions 
originated will not, of itself, demonstrate that they must necessarily 
always succeed each other in the same order. It must first be shown’ 
that there is a necessary connection between them, either in the nature 
of things or by divine appointment, rendering that same order always 
indispensable. On the day of Pentecost the people were exhorted to 
be baptized, with the promise that they should receive the Holy Ghost. 
At the house of Cornelius the Holy Ghost first fell on them, and they 
were afterward baptized. In these two instances the order of events 
was reversed. But we demand, How is it possible that baptism can be 
an indispensable prerequisite to the Supper, when, as we have seen, in 
its first institution under the direct administration of the great Head of 
the Church, we are furnished with an example in which the Supper pre- 
ceded Christian baptism? The position that Christian baptism is an in- 
dispensable prerequisite to the Supper must be relinquished, or the 
truth of the gospel history of these institutions must be set aside. Let 
those concerned choose their own position. 

(2) Again, the close communionist appeals~to~apostolie~precedent.to 
prove-that—baptism_must always precede.the-communion.._He argues 
“that the apostles never admitted to the communion an unbaptized per- 
son, and that, therefore, no others ever should be admitted. To this we 
reply that it never has been and never can be proved that the apostles 
never admitted to the communion an unbaptized person. The premises 
in this argument have been assumed without ‘lemonstration. We admit 
with great pleasure that, so far as appears fr»ym The Acts of the A pos- 
tles, it was their general practice to administer baptism to converts im- 
mediately upon their profession of Christianity. But this is as much 
as ¢an, with certainty, be affirmed. It is nowhere said that this was the 


Ch. xvii.] OBJECTIONS TO- FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 1011 


inveriable practice. No man can affirm from the Scriptures either that 
it was or that it was not. Nor does it matter at all, so far as the present 
question is concerned, which way that point be decided, or whether it 
be decided at all. The question now involved is not whether all Chris- 
tians should be baptized immediately on their profession of Christianity 
or not. his all parties admit and contend for. The point involved in 
controversy is, whether the neglect of baptism from an honest misun- 
derstanding of the subject necessarily deprives of the right, and releases 
from the obligation, of communion. Is there any apostolic precedent 
deciding this point? Ne such precedent exists. No such case ever oc- 
curred, so far as we are informed in Scripture, for apostolic adjudica- 
tion and decision. Admitting that all to whom the apostles adminis- 
tered the Supper had been baptized, this could not demonstrate that 
baptism must, in all cases, necessarily precede the Supper without a pre- 
cept to that effect, unless it could be shown that the circumstances under 
which the apostles acted would always continue essentially the same. 
The fact that the apostles performed any given act in a specific way, 
under certain specific circumstances, will not prove that they would per- 
form it in the same way when those circumstances are essentially changed. 
Indeed, it is certain they would have varied their conduct to suit the 
essential change in the circumstances of the case. And if the apostles 
themselves would have varied their course under an essential change of 
circumstances, their mode of action in the given case cannot be consid- 
ered a precedent binding others to the same mode, when those circum: 
stances have essentially changed. 

But we ask, Have the circumstances in the case before us essentially 
changed? Close communionists admit that they have. They admit 
that in the apostolic day all real Christians were baptized, and that 
there are many thousands of the most pious and exemplary of the pres- 
ent day who have never (according to the views of close communion- 
ists) been baptized at all. If, then, in the apostles’ day all Christians 
were baptized, and in the present day they are not all baptized, it is most 
certain that the circumstances have essentially changed ; and if so, the 
apostolic precedent here claimed, if admitted to exist, cannot apply to 
the case in hand ; consequently, the argument from this source is refuted. 

It is a very easy matter, however, to show that the apostolic prece- 
dent, and that confirmed, too, by express precept, is altogether on the 
other side. It is certian that the apostles admitted all “ believers ”— 
all true Christians—to the communion. This none can deny. Close 
communionists are free to admit it; but it is equally certain that close 
communionists do not receive all “believers”—all true Christians—to 


1012 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B. 2 


thew communion, This they are also free to admit. And hence it nee: 
essarily follows that their practice in this particular, and apostolic prece- 
dent, sustained too by apostolic precept, are in direct antagonism. They 
never can be reconciled. 

There must of necessity be some standard, some principle, or rule, by 
which to determine who ought and who ought not to be admitted to com 
munion. The apostles, it is agreed on all hands, admitted all “believ 
ers.” The general tenor of Scripture, yea, numerous express passager 
plainly and expl'itly teach that it is the duty of all “believers” to 
extend fellowship and communion to the entire “household of faith.” 
On the other hand, while it may be conceded that the apostles admitted 
none but baptized persons to the communion, it is not contended that 
there is a direct precept teaching that none but such should, under any 
circumstances, be admitted. It is, therefore, most evident that the 
standard, or rule, by which the apostles were governed in admitting per- 
sons to communion related not to baptism, but to faith, Their princi- 
ple was not to admit the baptized because and in virtue of their baptism, 
but the believers because and in virtue of their faith. If they admitted 
none but baptized persons, it was because all the “children of God” 
were baptized. Their admission or rejection turned not upon the ques- 
tion of their baptism, but upon the question of their adoption as “ the 
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” 

Again, admitting that the apostles everywhere, both by precept and 
precedent, enjoined upon all Christians the duty of attendance upon 
both the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s-supper, by what mode 
of reasoning do we arrive at the conclusion that a neglect of one duty 
releases from the obligations of another? Weare commanded to “search 
the Scriptures,” and “to hear the word of God;” but will any man say 
that we are to be prohibited from the one because we have omitted the 
other? We are commanded to repent, to believe, to seek, to ask, to 
love God, to love our neighbor, to love our enemies, to visit the sick ; 
but who would argue that a neglect of any one of these duties releases 
from the obligation of another? If it be said that these duties are sep- 
arate and distinct, having no such connection as necessarily to require 
that in all cases the one should precede the other, to this we reply, Let 
it be proved that there is such a connection between baptism and the 
Lord’s-supper that the former is an indispensable prerequisite to the 
latter, and the dispute is ended. But this can never be shown. Indeed, 
we are sure there can be no such connection, for in the very origin of 
te Supper it preceded Christian baptism. 

(3) Close communionists plead, in justification of their exclusive 


Ch. ayii.] OBJECLLUNS TO FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 1013 


practice, that “many of the Churches around them are loose_in_their 
discipline and-modes-of-receivingy members ;-and-they-think it.wrong — 
to commune where perhaps they would meet at the table with unworthy 

“persons.” The first reply we make to this objection to free communion 
“is this: It is very questionable whether those close communion Churches 
would have any the advantage in a comparison of membership in view 
of moral and religious character with most of those Churches whose 
fellowship they reject. The presumption is, that the “tares and the 
wheat” would be found growing together in quite as unfavorable pro- 
portion among them as among most other denominations. At any rate, 
it savors too much of that Phariseeism condemned by our Saviour for 
one denomination, having no just claims to peculiar sanctity, to say to 
all others: “Stand off, we are holier than you.” 

But this sensitive dread of meeting at the table of the Lord some 
unworthy communicant is based entirely upon a false assumption. It 
seems to grow out of a supposition that a sincere and upright believer, ?. . 

by meeting at the table an unworthy brother, would thereby become —~ — 

contaminated. No position can be more erroneous than this. \ In ap- 
proaching the table of the Lord, each Christian goes on his own re- 
sponsibility. “To his own Master he standeth or falleth.” It is his 
duty to “examine himse. nd not his brother ; and if he is unworthy, 
his going to the table of the Lord will avail him nothing. However 
holy the persons may be with whom he mingles, their righteousness can 
do him no good. On the other hand, if he be worthy, if he be sincere 
and honest, humble and devout, his approach to the table of the Lord 
will be an acceptable service. However unworthy portions of the com- 
municants may be, their unrighteousness can do him no harm. Did our 
approach to the table of the Lord involve us in the sins of all the un- 
worthy communicants with whom we may mingle, we might never be 
able to commune with safety. How can we certainly know, whether 
we commune at home or abroad, in this or the other Church, that there 
may not be a deceitful hypocrite at the table? We can have no guar- 
antee for our protection in a single instance upon this supposition. 
But look one moment at the arrogance of this position: Afraid to 
-approach-the table of the Lord, lest you might meet there an unworthy 
brother, one whose polluted-character might soil the-pure-white.robe of 
your own spotless_righteousness; and yet the immaculate Saviour of 
___the world condescended_to commune_at_thetable-with-Judas_Iscariot,. 
knowing -him—to—be~a—devil! “Are you so much better than the Sav- 
iour? | e_serveat so far above his Lord? —Is Christ-not-too-good 
to “eat the bread and drink the wine” with him who meditated the be 


——— 


1014 “ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [l. iv. B. 2 


trayal of his innocent blood, ready most shamefully to barter it for 
“thirty pieces of silver”? but is a poor sinful worm—one who scarcely 
dare look up in the presence of that almighty Saviour—too holy to 
humble himself to commune with his brother? 

(4) Close communionists, when driven from every other subterfuge, 
often try to excuse themselves from communing with other denomina- 
tions on the ground that it would offend their brethren. “We havea 
Church-rule,” say they, “which prohibits us from communing with 
other denominations; and were we to do so, it might offend many of 
our brethren.” We are persuaded that this plea, though never urged, 
so far as we know. by ministers, or writers on the subject, is doing more 
than any other one thing to bolster up the system of close communion. 
It therefore merits a serious consideration. 

The remarks of our Saviour in the eighteenth chapter of St. Mat- 
thew on the subject of “offenses” is often relied on by close commun- 
ionists as furnishing a vindication of their course in refusing to com- 
mune with other denominations. Our Saviour says: “ Whoso shall 
offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for 
him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned 
in the depth of the sea.” This is the principal if not the only text on 
which they seem to rely as vindicating their conduct. There are two 
acceptations in which the English word offense may be taken. It may 
mean simply to wound the feelings of another, or cause him to feel sor- 
rowful, or it may mean to put a stumbling-block in his way, so as to cause 
him to sin. 

The word skandala, here rendered offenses, signifies stumbling-blocks. 
The sense is this: whoso putteth a stumbling-block in the way of his 
brother, so as to cause him to fall into sin, ete. It is very clear that 
rendering a brother sorrowful by reproving him for his sins cannot be 
offending him in the sense of the text. Were we thus to construe it, 
St. Paul would be brought undér the malediction; for he made the 
Corinthians very sorry with a letter. The only sense which can be put 
upon the text with consistency is that which we have given above. We 
may therefore conclude that this scripture was never intended to pre 
vent the Christian from reproving the sins and endeavoring to correct 
the errors of his brethren, however much it might grieve them, pro- 
vided he proceed in that gentle manner, and is actuated by that Chris- 
tian spirit, which the gospel enjoins. 

St. Paul reproved St. Peter because he “ was to be blamed.” Chris- 
tians are exhorted to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to 
the saints.” The great foundation question for the Christian to settle 


th. xvii.} OBJECTIONS TO FREE COMMUNION ANSWERED. 1015 


at. the tribunal of his own judgment and conscience is this: What is 
true? what is right? This being decided, his line of duty is plain 
and direct. He must contend for the truth, and do what is right, leav- 
ing the consequences with God. 

Now if the close communionist is convinced that all Christians, ac- 
cording to the Bible platform, ought to commune together—if he is 
satisfied that this is in accordance with the genius of Christianity and 
well-pleasing to Heaven, he is most sacredly bound to use his utmost 
influence to promote that object, be the consequences what they may. 
How can he do this, while by his own practice he sanctions the very 
opposite? It might be a question of prudence whether he should first 
withdraw from a Church that will not allow him to commune with 
others before he proceeds to the violation of the rule of that Church; 
but it can be no question with him whether he should continue to prac- 
tice upon the close communion principle. He has already decided that 
the practice is unscriptural. 

The declaration of the apostles, when prohibited from preaching in 
the name of Jesus, now comes home to him with all its force. “We 
ought to obey God rather than men.” Therefore, to such as refuse to 
commune with other denominations because their Church-rule forbids 
it, we now say: Will you make void the law of God through the tra- 
ditions of men? In the great matter of Christian communion, are 
you prepared to violate your own views of what is right, merely to 
please erring brethren? Is it better to offend the entire “household of 
faith” (except your own denomination) by doing wrong, than to offend a 
portion of that denomination by doing right? Are you so much afraid 
of offending a few erring brethren, that to avoid it you will do wrong 
yourself, and yet so willing to give offense to all the people of God be- 
side, that you will offend them rather than do right? In one word, are 
you unwilling to offend your brother by doing right, and yet willing to 
offend God, your Saviour, by doing wrong ? 

It is only necessary for the great body of lay members, united with 
lose communion Churches, who have long been convinced of the im- 
propriety of the practice of close communion, led by some noble- 
minded Robert Hall, to resolve to follow out in practice those princi- 
ples of free communion which their consciences approve, and a blow 
will soon be struck that will cause the citadel of bigotry to tremble to 
its center, and thousands of God’s dear children, who have long dwelt 
in the same land, aliens and strangers to each other, will flow together 
in the arms of pure Christian fellowship and brotherly love. 


j 
/ 
/ 


/ 


V 


1016 ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY. [P. iv. B 2 


QUESTIONS ON CHAPTER XVII. 


Question 1, What is the first objection to| 4. What is the plea of close commun 
free communion, and how is it an- ionists, founded on the discipline of 
swered? other Churches? 

2. How is it proved that baptism is not| 5. How is this plea answered? 
an indispensable prerequisite to the | 6. What is their excuse, founded on thair 
Lord’s-supper ? Church-rule? 

3 How is it shown that apostolic prece- | 7. How is it shown to be untexalle? 
dent is against close communionists? 


GENERAL ALPHABETICAL INDEX. . 


Abel’s sacrifice, 213. 

Ability, natural and moral, 254, 255. 

Abraham’s offering of Isaac, 217; justification, considered, 217, 218. 

Actions, necessary and contingent, 24-26 ; of the Holy Spirit, prove his personality 
51, 52. 

Adam, his knowledge of God, 10, 11; his son born in his likeness, 142; his temp- 
tation, 109; his character when placed under law, 116; the federal head of 
his posterity, 120; his relation to his posterity, Whitby, 120; according to 
Pelagians, 120; remarks of Dr. Dick concerning his sin, 87. 

Administration of God, 700-704. 

Adoption, proved from Scripture, 435; evidence of, 436. 

Agent, free, God has power to create such, 179, 180. 

Angels, derivation and import of the term, 75; general import in Scripture, 79; 
unholy, concerning their fall, 76; their character, 77; their employment, 77; 
their destiny, 78; holy, their character and condition, 79; their employment, 80. 

Anger of God, how understood, 235. 

Annihilation, no evidence for it, 119, 120. 

Apostasy, final, universality of atonement argued from, 274; cautions against, 
proof that all might be saved, 275, 276. 

Apostolic Fathers, their residences, 590. 

Apostolic office, its nature, 866-871. 

Arians, their view of the divinity of Christ, 37; of the soul at birth, 123; of the 
atonement, 195; of the death of Christ, 195. 

Arminianism, abstract of the system, 262, 263; not inconsistent with admitted fact, 
313-317; the doctrines of grace, 317-319; God’s sovereignty, 319-322. 

Arminius, his view of original sin, 140, 141. 

Atonement, its necessity, 193; derivation and import of the term, 193; its connec- 
tic. with depravity, 193, 194; leading views concerning it, 194, 195; ground 
of its necessity, 196; how caricatured by infidels, 208 ; announced to Adam, 
and foretold by types, 210; reasonableness of the scheme, 230, 234; not a 
ground of divine obligation to save man, 237; its extent, two yreat parties 
concerning, 239; commercial view improper, 236. 

Attributes of God, their number not revealed, 20; not given to Christ by delega- 
tion, 42. 

(1017) 


1018 ’ GENERAL ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


Babylon, prophecy concerning, 656. 

Baptism, its nature, 940; different kinds of, 941-944; John’s considered, 942-944, 
design of, 947-951; subjects of, 953; infant, Abrahamic covenant, 954; in 
room of circumcision, 957; infant, Scripture proof of, 963-969; historical 
proof of, 970-972; its mode, 975; sources of Scripture proof, 976; testimony 
of lexicons, 976 ; Scripture instances of, 977; at Pentecost, 980; our Lord’s, by 
John, 979; the Ethiopian, by Philip, 983; of Saul, 985; of Cornelius and his 
household, 986; Scripture allusions to, 988; burial with Christ by, 990, 991; 
“one baptism,” 992. 

Baxter, his scheme of Calvinism, 245. 

Beasts, clean and unclean, 212 

Bible, who made it? 708; consistency of its parts, 698 

Bigotry, its evil tendency, 14. 

Body, human, proof of God’s existence, 14. 


Cain’s offering, 213. 

Calvinism, its essential difference from Arminianism, 242; principal theories of, 242, 
243 ; its leading principle unreasonable, 273; abstract of, 279, 280; Dr. Hill's 
view of, 280; compared with Arminianism, 312; difficulties of, it is contrary 
to tenor of Scripture, 322; inconsistent with man’s moral agency, 323; God’s 
benevolence, 324 ; justice, 325; sincerity, 325; destroys the distinction between 
virtue and vice, 326; New School, presentation of, 250-252 ; its distinction be- 
tween natural and moral ability, 254; inconsistent with the philosophy of 
language and the nature of things, 254, 255; New School, natural ability, in 
itself, can avail nothing toward salvation, 256; natural, moral, and gracious 
ability defined, 255; responsibility cannot arise from natural ability, 257; it 
devolves responsibility, not upon the sinner, but upon God, 258. 

Calvinists, all classes harmonize in the main question in controversy with Armin- 
lans, 260. 

Canaanites, why destroyed, 706, 707. 

Canon of the New Testament, catalogues, 588. 

Chalmers, his view of internal and external evidence, 621, 622. 

Christ, indorses the Old Testament, 694, 695; his personal character, 710; Rous- 
seau’s eulogy of, 712; import of the term, 37; his humanity, 37; divinity of, 
theories concerning, 37; titles of, 38; attributes of, 41; works of, 42; honors 
of, 46; his character as Mediator, 231; his sufferings voluntary, 233; he died 
for all men, 264; such as do or may perish, 267. 

Christianity, success of, 676; feeble means to promote, 682-684; powerful oppo- 
nents, 685; Gibbon answered, 687-689. 

Church, polity of, introductory remarks, 857; foundation principles of govern- 
ment, 860-864; government, form of, 873-876; Old Testament proofs, 878. 
identity of Jewish and Christian, 879. 

Consecration, Christian, 848; taught in Scripture, 849-851; objections considered, 
852-854. ; 

Contrition, leads to repentance, 346. 

Conviction, a work of God, 345. 

Creation, derivation and import of the term, 67; how properly understood, 67; 
erroneous theories concerning, 67, 68; date of, geological objection, 69-73 


GENERAL ALPHARETICAL INDEX. 1019 


extent of, 73; curious questions concerning, 73, 74; intelligent portion of, 75; 
ascribed to Christ, 43 ; absurdity of attributing it to a delegated being, 43, 44; 
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, 55; God’s design in, 103. 
Creeds, propriety of, 922-927; objections to, 928-933 ; various ones spoken of, 933. 
Curse, pronounced on Adam, 115. 


Daniel, his prediction of Christ’s birth, 666. 

Day, how understood in account of creation, 73. 

Death, never means annihilation, 119, 120; its connection with sin, 212; Christ's, 
contrasted with fall of Adam, 266; as a substitute, not the exact penalty, 231, 
232 ; justification connected with, 229; vicarious, proved from the Greek prepo- 
sitions, 226, 227; Scripture declarations, 227, 228. 

Deism, apostles of, 591. 

Dispensations, harmony of, 691. 

Divine Providence, notions of heathen sages, 83; erroneous views concerning, 83, 
84; classes of created things, 84; Scripture proofs of, over inanimate creation, 
85 ; law governing this class of things, 86; import of the laws of nature, 86; 
Scripture proof of, over vegetable creation, 87, 88; law by which this provi- 
dence is exercised, 88; over animal creation, Bible proof, 88, 89; law govern- 
ing this providence, 89; in reference to man as a moral agent, 90; Scripture 
proof of it, 90; it is universal in extent, 90; special, instances given, 90, 91; 
not always miraculous, 91; to deny it unphilosovhical, 92; difficulties in 
volved in it, 94, 95. 

Doctrines of revelation, excellency of, 714. 


Education cannot account for origin of moral evil, 137, 138; generally better than 
example, 137, 138. 

Edwards, his treatise on the will, argument in a circle, 187. 

Egyptian plagues, their design, 635, 636. 

Election, general explanation of, 282, 283 ; personal, of individuals to special office, 
283 ; national, to special privileges, the Jews, 284; the Christian Church, 287; 
its import in the Calvinistic scheme, 288; of individuals to eternal life, 289 

Elijah, his triumph on Mount Carmel, 627, 628. 

Emmanuel, name of Christ, 39. 

Equality with the Father, ascribed to Christ, 48. 

“Eternal now,” how understood as applied to God, 24. 

Eternity, an attribute of God, 22; ascribed to Christ, 41; to the Holy Spirit, 54. 

Kve, derivation of her body and soul, 142. 

Evidences of Christianity, important question, 545; method of investigation, 546 
first division of, 549; meaning preparatory division, 549; province of reason 
in the question, 549; divisions of different authors, 605; plan adopted in thie 
work, 605, 606; external, how defined, 606; internal, how defined, 606; ex- 
perimental, 719; in reference to individuals, 720; conditions of nations, 721; 
connected with conviction, 722; connected with witness of vhe Spirit, 724, 
Christians and infidels contrasted, 729, 730. 

Evil, concerning the origin of, 76, 77. 


Faith, how viewed by Antinomians and Calvinists, 357; proper view of the aub- 


1020 GENERAL ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


ject, 358; Sc-ipture testimony examined, 359; degrees in, and how derived 
360; evidences on which founded, 361; different kinds of, 362; justifying, con 
sidered, 362; view of Socinians and others, 362; proper view exhibited, 363; 
of devils, considered, 363; of Nicodemus and Simon Magus, 363; not a mere 
mental assent, 365; a degree of, precedes repentance, 347. 

Fall of man, its history, 104; how properly interpreted, 105; it might have been 
prevented, 105, 106; its effects, penalty of Adamic law, 110; different views 
of the penalty, 114; what the penalty embraced, 115. 

Fathers, they replied to Celsus and others, 592. 

Feast of expiat.on, Jewish yearly, 221, 222. 

Foreknowledge of God, not necessarily causative, 23-26; implies certainty not 
necessity, 184; as seen in the case of Judas, 184. 

Form of Church-government, not in minute detail, 883-885. 

Free agency consistent with divine prescience, 181. 

Free will, the term not strictly accurate, 166. 


God, derivation and import of the term, 9; names used in Scripture to designate, 
9; general view of his character, 10; existence of, 12; knowledge of, preserved 
by tradition, 11; not discovered by reason alone, 12; proofs of his existence, 
testimony of nations, 12; testimony of nature, 13; testimony of revelation, 
17; attributes of, classification unnecessary, 19; unity and spirituality, 20, 21; 
eternity, 22; omniscience, wisdom, 23-26; omnipotence, 28; omnipresence, 
29; immutability, 30; holiness, truth, and justice, 31, 32; goodness, 33; na- 
ture of, incomprehensible, 35; to what extent it should be studied, 19; good- 
ness of, requires that sin’ be punished, 34. 

Gospel, what implied in, 268; should be preached to all men, 267; not “good 
news” to the Calvinistically reprobate, 268, 269; requires repentauce and 
faith of all men, 267. 

Government of God, grand purposes of, 230. 

Government of the Church, 877; highest authority in the apostles, 877; various 
systems of, 887, 888; vested in ordained elders, 895-902. 

Grace, a day of, allowed to all, 114; doctrines of, not peculiar to Calvinism, 318. 

Guilt, proper definition of, 150; in what sense pertaining to brutes, 154. 


Happiness, possessed by man originally, 102; future, of the righteous, 532. 
Heathens, condition of, considered, 313. 

Heaven, a local habitation, 532; sources of happiness in, 539-541. 
Heretics, ancient, 591. 


Image of God, to what it relates, 100. 

Immortality of the soul, 473; philosophical view, 474 ; presumptive arguments, 485; 
Scripture proof, 491. 

Independency in Church-government examined, 914. 

Infants, various theories concerning, 145; salvation of, proved by Scripture, 148, 149; 
guilt of, proved by Scripture, 150, 151; quotations from Wesley, etc., 152, 153. 

Inspiration of sacred writers, how understood, 596; false views of, 596; proper 
view of, 597; classification of, improper, 601. 

Integrity of Scripture, what it implies, 573. 

Interpretation, Scripture should be explained by Scripture, 266. 


GENERAL ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 1021 


Jacob and Esau, Calvinistic argument concerning, 295. 

Jehovah, a title of Christ, 38. 

Josephus, his catalogue of the Old Testament, 581. 

Judgment, general, evidence of the fact, 507; proved by divine attributes, 507, 
natural conscience, 508; Scripture, 509; when to take place, 510; why de- 
ferred to the end of the world, 511; events to precede it, 511; manner of 
Christ’s coming to it, 512; its final issues, 514. 

Justification—implies remission of sin, Scripture proof, 369; does not imply abro 
gation of law, is personal, 370 ; absurd to suppose it eternal, 371 ; distinguished 
from regeneration, 371, 372; different plans of, presented, 374; by imputa- 
tion, considered, 374-380; Arminian view concerning, 383, 384; Wesley's 
concession, concerning, 384; by works alone, considered, 392; by faith and 
works united, considered, 393; by baptism, difficulties it involves, 412 ; of the 
thief on the cross 413; of Cornelius, 413; by faith only, considered, 397; how 
understood, 398; proved by Scripture, 400; leading objections to, 407; St. 
James's testimony examined, 408 ; by baptism, considered, 409. 


Law, Jewish, a complex code, 219; moral, ceremonial, and political, 219; must 
necessarily be revealed, 199. 
Leslie’s Short Method with Deists, 579. 


Man, primitive state of, 97; made in God’s image, 98; general reflections on his 
primal state, 102; character of, may appear better than it is, 143; God's de- 
sign in his creation, 196; made a free moral agent, 197. 

Matter, essentially different from mind, 179; eternity of, unreasonable, 68. 

Materialism, not implied in the soul’s traduction, 143. 

Ministry of sngels considered, 80. 

Ministry, Scripture terms to designate, 904, 905; ordination of, 906, 907; connec- 
tion between, and Churches, 907; itinerancy and regular pastorate, both em- 
braced, 908-910; Methodistic arrangement concerning, scriptural, 911, 912. 

Miracles, definition of, 607; Hume’s argument against, considered, 611; defective 
in two particulars, 615; inconsistency, 618-620; nature of their proof, 621- 
625; Egyptian, considered, 625, 626; in case of Job and New Testament, 626; 
Scripture view, 627; of Old Testament, considered, 632; of New Testament, 
considered, 637. 

Moral agency, possibility of sinning esséntial to, 106; of man, two leading views 
concerning, 161; its import, 165; view of Locke and Edwards, 163, 164; 
Arminian view, 165; view of President Day and Prof. Upham, 166; real point 
in controversy, 167; argument from consciousness, 167, 168; from history of 
all nations, 169; from the law given to man, 170, 171; from man’s being re- 
quired to choose, 172, 173; from the gene-al judgment, 173 ; objections, charge 
of absurdity considered, 178. 

Moral good, may exist in unregenerate men, 143. 

Morals, Bible the source of, 733; what reason can teach concerning, 735; manner 
taught in Scripture, 738; general principles, 816-824; relating +o husbands 
and wives, 825-830; parents and children, 831-839; rulers and subjects, 841- 
846. , 

Motives, various views concerning, 184; doctrine of, consistent with free agency 


1022 GENERAL ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 


186-190; real point in dispute concerning, 186; true nature of, shown, 189 
selfish, may lead to acts of seeming virtue, 143. 
Mystery, not in facts, but manner of facts, 705. 


Necessity, as applied to Deity, absurd, 182; distinguished from certainty, 144. 
New Testament, genuineness and authenticity of, 585; canon of, 585, 
Nineveh, prophecy concerning, 655. 


Obligation, ground of, 745; farther considered, 751; true ground stated, 754. 

Obligation, moral, what founded upon, 111. 

Old Testament, genuineness and authenticity of, 575. 

Omnipresence, pertains to God only, 30. 

Omniscience of God, absolute and certain, 23. 

Original sin, doctrine of the Methodist Church, 123, 124; Adam's posterity charge 
able with his guilt, 127, 128; does not imply the direct infusion of evil, 141. 


Pagans, their deficiency in the knowledge and worship of God, 549-554; knowl- 
edge of man’s origin, 556; duty, 558; destiny, 559; plan of salvation, 560. 

Pardon, not by mere prerogative, 202, 203; not by mere repentance, 204. 

Pastors, how appointed, 917-921. 

Patriarchal religion, Mosaic account of, brief, 218. 

Perfection, Christian, considered, 457; its definition, 458-461; proof, 462-465 ; 
when attainable, 465-469 ; objections considered, 470. 

Perseverance of the saints, 444. 

Pliny, his letter to Trajan, 680. 

Prayer, reason and propriety of, 763; objections to, 767; kinds of, 772; elements 
of, 772; divine influence essential to, 775; liturgical and extemporaneous, 783- 
790. 

Prophecies, a kind of miracle, 645; real or surreptitious, 647; relating to the Jews, 
648; concerning Cyrus, 651; Nineveh, 655; Babylon, 656; Tyre, 660; Mes- 
siah, 665-667 ; delivered by Christ, 672; infidel objections concerning, 674. 

Prophecy, extended, connected chain, 670, 671. 

Punishment, future, its nature, 519; its duration, 523-526. 


Rectitude, nature of, 748. 

Regeneration, its import, 418; Scripture proof of, 420; different theories concern- 
ing, 421, 422; divine influence essential to it, 427; scriptural view of it, 432. 

Resurrection of the body, philosophical objections, 496; of Christ, considered, 639 

Righteousness, primary and ultimate, 380. 


Sabbath, obligation of, perpetual, 792; Paley’s error concerning, 796-798 ; a moral 
duty, 798-800; specific, seventh day not essential, 803; change to first day, 
apostolic, 804-806 ; history of, 807; reasons of, 808; how to be observed, 810, 
811; benefits of, 812, 813. 

Sacraments, number and nature of, 936-939. 

Sacrifices, patriarchal, typical of the atonement, 211; scriptural proof that those 
under the law typified Christ, 218, 219; origin of, 211; remarks of Henry and 
Clarke concerning, 211, 212; of Cain and Abel, 213; of Noah, 215; of Abra 


GENERAL ALPHABETICAL INDEX. 1023 


ham, 216; of Job, 218; by the heathen, 222; objection to the divine institu 
tion of, 218; under the law, vicarious and expiatory, 219. 

Sadducees, deny the existence of spirits, 75. 

Salvation, procuring and meritorious cause of, 208 : offered to all, 264. 

Samaritan copy of Old Testament, 582. 

Septuagint version, 581, 582. 

Scripture and Christianity, their connection, 565; their antiquity, 568. 

Socinians, their view of the atonement, 194; divinity of Christ, 37; death of 
Christ, 209. 

Soul of man, created out of nothing, 68; derived by traduction from Adam, 142, 14: 

Sovereignty of God, Calvinistic and Artninian views of, 319-322. 

Style of sacred writers, 714. 

Success of the gospel, 678, 679. 

Sufferings of Christ, nature and extent, 232; limited in degree, infinite in value, 
PRY ey. 

Supper of the Lord, its nature, 994, 995; free communion defended, 999-1004 
objections considered, 1005. 


Theses, philosophical, presented, 744. 
Trinity, 58-60; objections considered, 63. 


Universalism, its difficulties, 526. 


Volition, in what sense an effect, 166; one not necessarily preceded by anotha 
179. 


Will of God, primary and ultimate, considered, 320 


Works of God, harmony in, 197, 198. 
Worship, divine, ascribed to Christ, 46. 


THE END 


oa 
i 


: 
ae : - aie ‘ 2, yak 
_ lok aan a’ rae : tae ray “ine 28 aan 

Pi nhl ' ane Pt ‘yin E ee 6 wll oF ns hhiayrdes EGY i, hn Pe 
age er. ae Sta wyeeh er eteiny cian ieee vat 


a ood ad ‘ 2 f+ Fe 
Jeu otal” mee! Us ‘ £ Y eur, > Os ‘a re aahiigh “ SAS 
Vuey koa = 4 : je a 7 ‘ 
(a 55 Sas } ait Sig Y ron SL in amy wae hols 
é . ; , y : 

7 sa" : bw’ "I ot ' 3 ' a i Saal : 
ie hy : ‘A f oh, Par” 
us ; ty : A Te, » ale oR a hae i , oe ie 5 

Ties ‘ a 
r ea <* vt ; po’ te ® pay Ade i tiling 
See f ae — ea it - " : Teel boyd hyd vt ally 
; 2) ee POTD ES, aul it an +%ydj3 
( ay) 4 = is 
¢ a + A 
ee 4 b yptvat) Ti i AM: 
4 : : 
i] oe - * in 
ty j al ® t . ’ , ve be: 
7 ea ‘ 
: ; 4 = t * ° , a i 
, ; "00 4% le un P oe de ¥! aT ee 
“ae ; ‘ 
. A x . ’ wen Pas Ad 
’ ; * ae} a er f 
' j ’ ; 
r - i“ , 7 
ee a 
» § ‘ - ‘ 4 
ra ye , ~ ¢ 
‘ j 
| a « iM 
ke od 
¢ i i J s 
Pao = : 
vA Yad . ire wees 
. = ‘ ; ae Yow * 
3 e 
cA a a sae ts i‘ o 
fl i: ; 
_ pe ; ‘ 
( : f 
: 4 : - : 
Ue ae Sy? us| Se highinlital 4 ea Fi 
‘ {  vieihe y C 
geet a, | 


ar ter 
esha Y 
i 


7 at 
[ s* 


i . 2 i 
“au § 1 
; J 


bs 49 ray ae ‘th * ‘ if wien Hyg Fn bite a vn 
iciewmi ay ihsoreehinmnt 
he 7 i } r [ om" ) 


p, 


tidbic 


mith 
Pieetiw bh: i 4 
1g ee a ie : 
a ee WT a eAt, t 


' i 


eol 


= 
- 
c 
°o 


rete a Sree 


sein te 
7 


